We have been advising a client on a defamation claim that is facing difficulties on account of the delay of the claimants in bringing the claim to litigation. It is important to be mindful of the new limitation period applied by the Defamation Act 2009 when advising on such cases.
The Defamation Act, 2009 applies to publications that took place on or after the 1st of January 2010. The new Act brought in a new time limit of one year after the date of publication of a defamatory statement to bring an action in the court claiming damages for defamation. This reduced the time limit from six years to one year, which constitutes a substantive change in the previous rules that applied.
There is provision however in the Defamation Act to make an application for an extension of time. It is possible for the one year limitation period to be extended by leave of the court up to a maximum of two years. Such an extension will only be granted where it is in the interest of justice and in circumstances where the plaintiff would be more prejudiced by the order not being made then the defendant may be if the order was made. In any such application, the court will consider the reasons why the defamation action was not brought within the required one year period. It will also consider to what extent any evidence is no longer available by virtue of the delay in issuing proceedings.
It appears that the courts are cautiously applying the extension provision contained in the 2009 Act. It is proving difficult for a plaintiff to succeed in securing an extension of time particularly in circumstances where there is no clear explanation for their delay and evidence is presented that the defendant may be disadvantaged by the plaintiff’s delay.
Our advice to clients is that they must act as quickly as they can in defamation cases. The issue in defamation cases is damage to one’s reputation and you must be seen to act quickly to limit such damage. Not only will a slowness to act potentially bring a plaintiff outside the one year limitation period, but it is also likely to colour the court’s approach to the claim in general.
Most claims are brought very quickly by plaintiffs but we have found in circumstances where a defamatory statement has been published on the internet, claimants do not always progress the cases with due haste. It is clear that the new legislation necessitates quick action if a plaintiff is to successfully recover damages for defamation.