High Court provides guidance on appropriate damages for defamatory online posts and reviews

Peter Casey v Kim McMenamin

Background

Mr Casey sought damages for defamation in relation to a Facebook post by Mr McMenamin, the Defendant, which falsely accused Mr Casey of human trafficking and the inhumane treatment of refugees. Mr Casey had developed accommodation for housing Ukrainian refugees. On 25 April 2023 Mr McMenamin posted on Facebook: “We spoke to the workers and informed them that moving unvetted people around like cattle and then warehousing them in office cubicles for profit is akin to human trafficking and inhumane”.

On 15 May 2023, Mr Casey wrote to Mr McMenamin requesting that the post be removed since it was defamatory and untrue and created a reasonable inference that the Plaintiff was involved in illegal human trafficking. After the post was not removed, Mr Casey issued High Court proceedings against the Defendant.

No appearance was entered nor were any steps taken by the Defendant to defend his position. On 27 November 2023, the High Court entered judgment in default of appearance ordering the Defendant to remove the post in question and set the case down for hearing to assess damages.

Court Findings

On 4 December 2024, having found that the post in question included defamatory wording and that there had been publication, Mr Justice Nolan delivered judgment on the assessment of damages.

Nolan J underscored the need to assess damages pursuant to section 31 of the Defamation Act 2009 and pointed to the following factors:

“the nature and gravity of any allegation and the defamatory statement concerned, the means of publication of it, the extent that the statement was circulated, the importance of [sic] the Plaintiff of his reputation in the eyes of recipients of the statement and the evidence of the reputation of the Plaintiff.”

Nolan J was satisfied that the Plaintiff had a “very fine reputation” in society which had been damaged by the defamatory remarks. He was also “struck” that the online posts remained in place for at least nine months after the order of the court to remove them and that there had been no prior steps by the Defendant to remediate the defamatory remarks.

Nolan J applied the principals set out by the Supreme Court in Higgins v the Irish Aviation Authority, which laid out the general categories of damages in defamation cases as follows:

Nolan J held this case fell within the second category of “medium” damages, as it had a significant impact upon the Plaintiff, and awarded general damages of €120,000, in addition to €20,000 in aggravated and punitive damages. The Defendant’s failure to remove the posts in question over many months was found to be particularly aggravating, as it was in breach of a court order and a contempt of the court process. Nolan J also factored in the Defendant’s complete failure to engage in the proceedings in his assessment of appropriate damages.

Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing v James Manning and Julie Manning

Background

Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing sought damages against the Defendants in relation to negative reviews posted online by the first defendant, Mr James Manning. Mr Manning posted these reviews following a dispute over plumbing services provided by the Plaintiff and fees arising from additional plumbing services not initially envisaged. The Defendants refused to pay for these additional services and as a result, the Plaintiff removed the equipment it had installed.

The negative reviews were posted on platforms such as Google Maps and Trustpilot, and included statements describing the company as a “rogue trader”, “absolute con men”, “gangsters” and “cowboys”. It was found that Mr Manning posted these reviews under various names, including that of his wife.  In certain reviews, Mr Manning falsely claimed that the Plaintiff was under investigation by An Garda Síochána in relation to theft of property.

By order dated 23 October 2023, the High Court granted judgment in default of appearance against the Defendants and the case was set down for hearing to assess the appropriate damages.

Court Findings

On 11 February 2025, Mr Justice Bradley delivered judgment for the High Court and in assessing damages, applied the principles set out in Casey to consider the gravity and impact of the online post (as detailed above).

Bradley J ruled that the reviews describing the Plaintiff “as ‘cowboys’, ‘gangsters’, ‘absolute con men’ and that the ‘gardai’ were ‘investigating the removing of items’ would lead a reader of those reviews, i.e., in the eyes of reasonable members of society, to conclude that the reviewer who had engaged the company thought they conmen who had had stolen property and that the gardaí were investigating the matter”.

Bradley J indicated the short length of time the reviews were posted was an important factor in the assessment of damages, stating: “the relatively short period during which the reviews were posted online, combined with the fact that company ran a well-established and trusted business are also factors to be weighed in the balance when assessing the amount of compensation.”

Bradley J also had regard to the means and extent of publication of the defamatory statement and accepted evidence that online reviews have the potential for wide circulation and that ‘word of mouth’ constituted an important factor in generating business and the “reputational profile” of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff gave evidence that sales figures had declined in the period after the reviews were posted. Bradley J did not accept that the particular drop in sales figures cited was due to the reviews but accepted that the reviews, “had a general reputational damage on the company (albeit one limited in time)”.

Having regard to Casey and the damages guidelines laid down in Higgins, Bradley J considered the case to be in the ‘moderate’ category of seriousness of defamation and that the Plaintiff was entitled to an award of €40,000.

Bradley J did not make an award for aggravated and punitive damages. In particular he considered that there was a relatively short period during which the reviews were available online, with two of the reviews removed after 24 hours and the others removed after four days. Bradley J also took into consideration that the first defendant had expressed a degree of regret, although noting that this did not amount to an apology within the meaning of the Defamation Act 2009.

In a further costs hearing on 19 March 2025, the Defendants were ordered to pay the legal costs of the case, at the Circuit Court rather than High Court scale. The lower Circuit Court scale was applied as the damages awarded were within the maximum €75,000 limit of the Circuit Court.

Conclusion

The High Court judgments of Casey and Stillorgan Gas Heating and Plumbing provide useful guidance in relation to the key factors the Court will consider when assessing damages arising from defamatory posts online, and reiterate the relevance of the Higgins damages parameters.

In particular, these judgments emphasise that the defendant’s conduct, including whether or not the defendant took steps to remove the content and the length of time a defamatory post remains online, are particularly important for the assessment of damages. The Court will also consider the degree of remorse shown by a defendant and their level of their engagement with the court process