DUBLIN CITY councillor Joe Burke, who is suing a newspaper for libel claiming it wrongly accused him of seeking a corrupt £500,000 payment on behalf of Bertie Ahern, is not entitled to additional details of the allegation in advance of his action, a High Court judge has ruled.
Mr Burke is suing Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd over an article published in Ireland on Sunday (IOS) in October 2002 which, he claims, included defamatory statements about him.
As part of his proceedings, Mr Burke had sought an order requiring Associated Newspapers to provide him with particulars in relation to a plea of justification included in its defence of the action.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan refused the application after finding Mr Burke already knew, “in broad outline”, the case he has to meet.
Mr Justice Hogan, outlining the libel claim, said the IOS article concerned an inquiry being conducted in 2002 by the Flood (now Mahon) tribunal into allegations of political corruption and zoning of certain lands at Quarryvale, Clondalkin, Dublin.
Mr Burke was described as being a close friend of then taoiseach Mr Ahern, the judge said. The article, the judge noted, had claimed Mr Burke was being investigated by the tribunal over his “role in discussions he had on behalf of the taoiseach with property developer Tom Gilmartin, who is expected to be a star witness at the public hearings”.
Mr Burke commenced defamation proceedings in May 2003 and two years later the paper delivered a defence denying the words complained of carried defamatory imputation. It also pleaded, if the words bore the meanings alleged, “then the same were true in substance and in fact in those meanings”. Given the “somewhat laconic nature” of the justification plea, it was not surprising that Mr Burke’s solicitors demanded the newspaper give particulars of this plea, the judge said.
Mr Justice Hogan said, in general, while a litigant is entitled to know the nature of the case they are to meet, they are not entitled to learn in advance the evidence their opponent will lead in support of that contention.
While the distinction between what is pleaded and what is evidence is “often a fine one”, it was clear a plaintiff is not entitled to further particulars once the essence of the case to be met is clear from the pleadings, the judge said.