time limits/ defamation

section4

what are the time limits for taking a case of defamation and when does the cause of action arise.
example.

defamatory letter is published december 2002

solicitors letter arrives circa march 2003
accussing defamation abd seeking damages
for content of above letter

solicitors letter arrives jan 2004 containeing civil bill
which is stamped aug 2003.

does the six years run from the date of publication:dec 2002
or from receipt of solicitors letter: mar 2003
or from issueing of civil bill ;aug 03
or from receipt of civil bill: jan 2004.

thanks
section4

sh_o

time starts from publication of the defamatory material.
Time stops running for the purpose of the Statute of limitations once Civil Bill has been issued.

section4

in the instance I used that would only be 8 months.
from dec 02 till aug 03.

in the example I used the civil bill was issued in aug 03 the publication was dec 02, if the civil bill was issued but the case was not taken to court when does the limitation period end, ie: when would this example be statute barred.
ie:could the case be taken in say may 09 over 6 years after publication.

johnnyskeleton

section4 wrote: »

in the instance I used that would only be 8 months.
from dec 02 till aug 03.

in the example I used the civil bill was issued in aug 03 the publication was dec 02, if the civil bill was issued but the case was not taken to court when does the limitation period end, ie: when would this example be statute barred.
ie:could the case be taken in say may 09 over 6 years after publication.

Once proceedings have been issued there is no time limit for the case to come to trial. However, if there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay on the part of the Plaintiff then the Defendant can bring an application to have the case dismissed for want of prosecution. There is a lot of caselaw on this point, and there is no general rule. The Defendant should try to point to any prejudice they have suffered because of the delay.

Tom Young

The best case is Gilroy v Flynn SC. 2004 IESC 98.

Order 37, r 14 allows for terms in set-aside.

There is an inherent jurisdiction to allow matters be litigated even with delay e.g., Desmond v MGN 2008 IESC where a Tribunal of enquiry delayed the brining of proceedings.

Tom

section4

thats seems rather unfair.

thats means the defendant would have to be ready to defend themselves in couirt for the rest of their lives on the whim of the plaintiff.

Tom Young

It can be, but in general terms it's a balance of justice test.

The main case are the one above, Rainsfort and Primor.

Tom

dats_right

A defendant could also try force the hand of the plaintiff by serving a notice of trial on the plaintiff and trying to force the plaintiff to either 'p*ss or get off the pot'..