A judge has dismissed former Sunday Independent columnist Eoghan Harris’s appeal against the Circuit Court’s decision to transfer his defamation action against journalist Aoife Moore to the High Court.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Paul Burns confirmed the transfer of Mr Harris’s case to the High Court.
He said the matters to be addressed in Mr Harris’s action against Ms Moore and her defamation claim against him should be “tried at the same time in the same venue by the same court”.
Mr Harris has claimed in proceedings he brought before the Circuit Court that he was defamed in a May 2021 tweet posted by Ms Moore.
Christmas TV and movie guide: the best shows and films to watch
Laura Kennedy: We like the ideal of Christmas. The reality, though, is often strained, sad and weird
How Britain’s prison system is teetering on the brink of collapse
Fostering at Christmas: ‘We once had two boys, age 9 and 11, who had never had a Christmas tree’
He claims that in the post she wrongly accused him of directly sending her sexualised messages on Twitter.
In her defence, she denies defaming Mr Harris in a tweet which she says was posted after it emerged Mr Harris was involved in an account that had posted allegedly defamatory material about her.
Ms Moore and another journalist, Allison Morris, have brought separate High Court proceedings against Mr Harris, claiming they were defamed in posts on a Twitter account called “Barbara J Pym” that was allegedly operated by Mr Harris and others on dates between 2020 and 2021.
Ms Moore claims she was defamed in those tweets which she says called into question her journalistic objectivity and that her reporting was partisan in favour of Sinn Féin and the wider Republican movement in Ireland. She also claims the tweets referred to her in a sexualised manner.
Mr Harris denies her claims.
Mr Harris’s action against Ms Moore was due to be heard before the Circuit Civil Court earlier this year.
However, following a pre-trial application by Ms Moore’s lawyers before Christmas, Judge John O’Connor ruled Mr Harris’s case should be transferred to the High Court.
Ms Moore, represented by Thomas Hogan SC, and Conan Fegan BL, instructed by Phoenix Law solicitors, claimed that because there was an overlap on the issues surrounding the claims, both cases should be heard together in the High Court.
Represented by Remy Farrell SC, appearing with Hugh McDowell BL, instructed by solicitor Robert Dore, Mr Harris argued his case should be heard separately and before a judge of the Circuit Court.
In his ruling, confirming the Circuit Court’s decision, Mr Justice Burns directed that, upon transfer to the High Court, both sets of proceedings should be listed before the judge in charge of the defamation list for case management.
An application that the two claims be tried together should also be made.
The judge was satisfied there is “a significant linkage and overlap between the two sets of proceedings”. The complexity of the issues involves makes the High Court “a more appropriate tribunal”, the judge added.
The judge added that if the matters were not tried at the same time in the same venue by the same court that such a multiplicity of proceedings would add to costs and take up more valuable court time than would otherwise be the case.
The judge added that he also accepted the undertaking given by Ms Moore’s lawyers that the proceedings will be prosecuted with expedition.
He awarded the costs of the appeal before him in favour of Ms Moore but placed a stay on the execution of the costs order pending the outcome of the cases.