A High Court decision yesterday means that in future a defendant in a defamation action can admit some of the innuendoes alleged against them and lodge monies in court in respect of those.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly said a 1991 Law Reform Commission report had said there appeared to be no obvious reason why a defendant in a defamation case could only lodge monies if there was an admission of liability when defendants in other actions could make payments into court without any such admission.
The judge noted there had been a failure to act on the commission's recommendation that the rules of court be amended so a defendant in a defamation action could make a payment without admitting liability. He had to act on the law as it stood.
Mr Justice Kelly was giving judgment in an action by Norbrook Laboratories Ltd and Norbrook Laboratories (Ireland) Ltd against SmithKline Beecham (Ireland) Ltd, trading as SmithKline Beecham Animal Health.
SmithKline sought directions on whether a payment into court regarding some but not all of the plaintiffs' allegations of defamation would be a valid payment.
The action arises out a letter allegedly sent by the defendant to members of the veterinary profession which was allegedly designed to, and did, disparage one of Norbrook's products.
Defence counsel had advised that as far as the allegations of defamation were concerned a lodgement should only be made in relation to some meanings of the alleged defamation.
Mr Justice Kelly said the defendant wished to admit certain of the innuendoes and to make a lodgement regarding these. But it wanted to maintain its defence regarding others.
Granting the application, the judge directed a payment into court by the defendant was valid, provided the notice of the lodgement specified the particular allegations for which payment was being made.