The High Court is set to fix a trial date concerning entrepreneur Dermot Desmond’s libel lawsuit against The Irish Times. This follows recent instructions by Justice Alexander Owens, who determined that the pretrial process has concluded and the case is prepared for trial. Consequently, the lawsuit may be added to the forthcoming High Court schedule for setting trial dates.
This lawsuit stems from The Irish Times’ 2016 reporting surrounding the “Panama papers”, a leak of 11.5 million documents from Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm. This leak contained financial data pertaining to offshore tax structures and was initially leaked to German paper Süddeutsche Zeitung before being distributed globally via the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, including The Irish Times.
In a lawsuit launched against The Irish Times in July 2016, Mr. Desmond is suing for damages. He alleges defamation, stemming from an article published in April of the same year, which he asserts implied impropriety in the management of his finances. Additionally, he accuses the publication of privacy and confidence breaches. However, The Irish Times rejects these allegations and argues that the article was produced in good faith and for public interest discussion regarding offshore tax habitation and regulation growth.
During pretrial, Mr. Desmond objected to The Irish Times’ intention to summon expert testimony from Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz. Professor Stiglitz has compiled a report examining the Panama Papers, The Irish Times’ reportage, and considerations like the offshore financial system’s extent and implications. His report offers his views on whether the article about Mr. Desmond from April 7th, 2016, contributed to the public interest. Dr. Stiglitz argued that the article introduced the critical topic of corporate transparency, specifically regarding the use of bearer shares — shares owned by whoever holds it at a particular time. The document highlights that internationally there had been consensus about the need to eliminate bearer shares even before the Panama papers emerged.
Last month, Judge Owens deemed Prof Stiglitz’s testimony inadmissible in a ruling, underlining that it wasn’t vital for resolving matters related to the defence as per section 26 of the Defamation Act 2009 concerning fair and reasonable publication of public interest. He noted that the higher court regulations stipulate that specialist evidence “should” be confined to what is reasonably demanded to facilitate the court’s judgement of the proceedings.
While such evidence can be accepted on subjects beyond general knowledge, the judge emphasised that the existence and use of offshore tax havens and corporate tax systems for tax avoidance and wealth concealment were “common knowledge”.
The case was reinstated before the judge on the previous Monday to finalise orders and establish the cost-related issues of the pre-trial request. Jim O’Callaghan SC, together with Ray Ryan BL, representing Mr Desmond, requested that the ultimate order should exclude Prof Stiglitz’s testimony owing to its inadmissibility. They argued their party was entitled to full costs as their application had been successful.
Michael O’Higgins SC, accompanied by John Maher BL, representing The Irish Times, expressed that the judge’s judgement had resolved critical matters, making it essentially an effective trial judgement aiding both parties. Consequently, they asked the judge to either withhold the application costs until the case conclusion or apportion some costs currently, leaving the rest dependent on the case result. After contemplating the proposals, the judge granted the orders as Mr Desmond had requested.
Stay informed with our Inside Politics Podcast for recent analysis and discussions. Register for push notifications and get top news, analysis, and comments straight to your phone. Stay updated with The Irish Times on WhatsApp.