- Home
- News & insights
- Insights
- High court rejects C…
- On this page
18 February 2025
Disputes Quick Read – 104 of 103 Insights
High court rejects CNN’S application to stay defamation proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds
- Briefing
Declan Ganley & Rivada Networks Ltd v Cable News Network, Inc. & Ors [2025] IEHC 62
The Irish High Court has refused an application by CNN and associated entities to stay defamation proceedings brought by businessman Declan Ganley and his company, Rivada Networks Ltd. The decision of Mr Justice Simons underscores the considerable hurdles that Defendants face when seeking to displace Irish jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds in defamation cases.
This, combined with the removal of the proposed measures to address libel tourism from the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024, indicates that Ireland will continue to be an attractive forum for plaintiffs pursuing defamation actions.
Background
Declan Ganley and Rivada Networks initiated proceedings against CNN and other related entities, alleging that the broadcaster published defamatory material concerning them. The Defendants applied for a stay, arguing that the subject matter of the claim was overwhelmingly connected to the United States, where CNN is headquartered and where they contended, any reputational damage would have been primarily felt. On that basis, they argued that an American court was the more appropriate forum for the dispute.
Court’s decision
Mr Justice Simons ruled against the stay application for the following reasons:
- The Defendant’s burden: The court reiterated that it is for the Defendant to demonstrate that another jurisdiction is “clearly more appropriate” than Ireland. This requires more than simply identifying connections to another jurisdiction—there must be compelling evidence that Ireland is an inappropriate forum for adjudicating the dispute. The Defendant had identified either the federal courts of the United States or the local courts of Washington D.C. as their proposed alternative forum.
- Limitation and a proposed requirement for a protective writ: The Defendants argued that the plaintiffs should have pre-emptively issued a protective writ in the U.S., given that the limitation period there had expired before the stay application was brought. However, Mr Justice Simons rejected this, emphasising that the two-year delay in bringing the stay motion was the Defendants’ own doing. Had they acted sooner, the plaintiffs might still have had recourse in the U.S. The court held it was unreasonable to expect the plaintiffs to anticipate and pre-empt a jurisdictional challenge under these circumstances.
- The importance of publication in Ireland: A fundamental principle of Irish defamation law is that a cause of action accrues where a defamatory statement is published and received. In this case, it was accepted that the material had been accessed in Ireland, meaning that the alleged defamation had occurred within this jurisdiction. This factor alone is often decisive in cases involving multinational media organisations.
- Reputational harm in Ireland: Crucially, the court placed significant weight on the plaintiffs’ reputational interests in Ireland. Ganley, a well-known businessman with extensive business and political interests in the country, could reasonably claim that any damage to his reputation would be particularly acute within Ireland. The court viewed this as a strong jurisdictional anchor.
- No clearly more appropriate forum: While the court accepted that there were connections to the United States, it was not persuaded that a U.S. court would be the more suitable venue. Given the availability of Irish defamation law protections and the presence of a clear cause of action in Ireland, the balance did not tilt in the Defendants’ favour.
Implications for forum non conveniens arguments in defamation cases
This decision has broad ramifications for media organisations and other international Defendants seeking to resist Irish jurisdiction in defamation cases:
- High threshold for displacing Irish jurisdiction: The ruling affirms that mere international publication does not automatically make another jurisdiction “clearly more appropriate.” Defendants must show that the foreign forum is significantly preferable rather than just another viable option.
- Obligation to move quickly when bringing forum non conveniens: A central weakness in the Defendants’ position was their failure to act with the necessary urgency in seeking a stay. While the expiration of a limitation period in another jurisdiction is not, in itself, fatal to a forum non conveniens application, the Court was clear that delay in bringing such a motion could be. The Plaintiffs had acted reasonably in pursuing their claim in Ireland and not issuing a protective writ in the U.S. The key issue was that the Defendants waited over two years before bringing their motion—by which time the U.S. limitation period had already expired by more than a year. The court took a dim view of this delay, finding that it undermined the Defendants’ claim that the United States was the more appropriate forum.
- Strength of the publication in Ireland principle: The judgment reinforces the principle that if defamatory content is published and accessed in Ireland, Irish courts will be reluctant to cede jurisdiction—even where a publication is global in scope.
- Impact on reputation-based jurisdictional arguments: Plaintiffs who can establish a meaningful reputation in Ireland will continue to find Irish courts receptive to their claims, limiting the ability of Defendants to argue that reputational harm is primarily felt elsewhere.
- Comparisons with UK: While the UK’s post-Brexit reforms have sought to limit “libel tourism,” Ireland remains a forum where claimants can pursue defamation claims against international publishers with relative ease. To date, the Irish government has not provided any explanation for the recent removal of the proposed measures to address libel tourism from the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024. This may encourage further litigation against global media companies in the Irish courts.
Conclusion
The High Court’s decision in Ganley v CNN highlights the significant burden on Defendants seeking to resist defamation proceedings in Ireland on jurisdictional grounds. For international media organisations, this ruling serves as a cautionary tale. If content is published in Ireland and the claimant has a recognisable reputation within the jurisdiction, Irish courts will be slow to defer to foreign courts. For further insights on media litigation and jurisdictional challenges, please contact Taylor Wessing’s Disputes & Investigations team.
In this series
Opening the doors: how the January 2026 pilot will transform access to court documents
21 October 2025
by Multiple authors
Collective actions impacting big tech - Ireland set to test the boundaries in ICCL v Microsoft
11 June 2025
Wirral Council v Indivior plc: Court of Appeal upholds strike out of opt-in representative action securities claim
30 January 2025
What are the litigation trends in 2025?
22 January 2025
by Multiple authors
Changes to the privilege rules between companies and shareholders
6 December 2024
Victory for energy companies/defeat for the environment?
14 November 2024
Failure to prevent fraud offence to come into force in September 2025
14 November 2024
by Emma Allen
Essex Cricket Club charged by Cricket Regulator
30 October 2024
by Multiple authors
UK introduces mandatory reimbursement rules to combat APP fraud
15 October 2024
New SFO Director announces bold plans to tackle fraud
21 March 2024
by Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
First of its kind judicial guidance on the use of AI in the courts
14 December 2023
Witness familiarisation - does it affect the court's assessment of witness credibility?
13 December 2023
CAT to hear the first application for a collective settlement approval order
17 October 2023
Pre-Action Protocols – what is different?
12 September 2023
by Tom Charnley
Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?
14 August 2023
by Multiple authors
Supreme Court rules that APP fraud victims cannot rely on Quincecare Duty
4 August 2023
by Multiple authors
The Law Commission's Consultation Process on the Arbitration Act 1996 – taking stock
21 July 2023
What does the latest decision of the CAT in the Mastercard/Visa proceedings mean for class actions?
10 July 2023
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth refused permission to pursue directors of Shell
1 June 2023
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read – developments in the fixed costs regime
3 May 2023
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Service by email – are the rules any clearer?
20 April 2023
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Breaking the north/south divide?
5 April 2023
by Tom Charnley
Disputes Quick Read - What do practitioners think about making alternative dispute resolution (ADR) compulsory?
8 March 2023
Disputes Quick Read: What are the litigation trends for 2023?
2 March 2023
Disputes Quick Read: further guidance on witness statement preparation rules
14 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A cautionary tale – settlement agreement (un)wittingly releases all claims for fraud
13 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: Why the UK should join the Hague Judgments Convention 2019
8 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: extensive information orders granted against crypto exchanges following hack
19 January 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A new approach to giving evidence? WhatsApp with that?
3 October 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Ethereum Merge - what legal issues arise?
22 September 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime
9 August 2022
by Nick Maday
Disputes Quick Read: Disclosure - What information can be redacted?
25 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: what claims exist when a smart contract is breached?
6 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: Defining the duty - the limits of the responsibility assumed by professionals
27 July 2022
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – successful challenge to government's Net Zero Strategy
29 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 – now in force
17 June 2022
Disputes Quick Read: an important reminder of the duty to disclose electronic documents in native format
13 June 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ENRC prevails in claim against former solicitor
26 May 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation update – McGaughey v Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited
31 May 2022
by Multiple authors
Don't lose your keys: Bitcoin developers do not have a duty to assist owners in recovering lost cryptocurrency
4 April 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: The new witness statement preparation rules – a year on
5 April 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth v Shell – climate change litigation shifts focus to UK companies
31 March 2022
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: High Court rules that failure to provide adequate data security is not a positive act
21 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Key changes to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme
13 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Bill – unpacking the UK government's proposed amendments
6 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Will litigants be compelled to participate in alternative dispute resolution?
2 August 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Freezing injunctions – maximum custodial sentence imposed for breach
21 July 2021
Disputes Quick Read: The online future of civil justice – the end of the legal profession or the end of legal drudgery?
15 July 2021
by Jess Thomas
Disputes Quick Read: Will the courts change forever post-COVID?
26 May 2021
Disputes Quick Read: One Blackfriars administrators cleared of misfeasance
5 May 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Not your prerogative – the Independent Review of Administrative Law reports its recommendations on judicial review
21 April 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Amendments to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – a step in the right direction
31 March 2021
Disputes Quick Read: UK Supreme Court rules on the territorial extent of the SFO's powers
26 February 2021
by Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: No dropping anchor – parent company liability for environmental claims
24 February 2021
Disputes Quick Read: What lawyers need to know about new witness statement preparation rules
20 January 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Should you still choose the English courts to have jurisdiction in your international contracts after Brexit?
12 January 2021
by Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: Privilege lost in the EU post-Brexit (with exceptions)
23 November 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Law on interest applicable to US dollar awards reaffirmed
16 October 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices
23 September 2020
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Why the modernised LCIA rules are a welcome update
7 October 2020
by Nick Storrs
Disputes Quick Read: COVID-19 and supply chain disruption – key issues
9 April 2020
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: High Court orders parties to explore options for 5-week remote trial
15 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms
27 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: UK's OFSI fines Standard Chartered Bank £20 million for sanctions breaches
21 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: A different approach to witness evidence
11 March 2020
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Coronavirus - a growth in virtual courts?
17 March 2020
by Stuart Broom
Disputes quick read: climate change activism by litigation
26 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift
21 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Court stays evictions during COVID-19 – is this lawful?
2 June 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Will the civil justice system change forever post COVID-19?
16 June 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Retailers reign supreme in Visa and Mastercard proceedings
9 July 2020
Disputes Quick Read: The contra proferentem rule reconsidered?
21 July 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Scope of duty and the SAAMCo counterfactual following Manchester Building Society
3 December 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Facilitating transactions in cryptoassets - Lord Leggatt and the point of commercial law
24 November 2021
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Privy Council clarifies the law on freezing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings
8 October 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – what's the latest?
10 January 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Court decisions on the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – the 2021 roundup
20 January 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Assumption of responsibility - tax schemes and investors
22 March 2022
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it
7 April 2022
Related Insights
Collective actions impacting big tech - Ireland set to test the boundaries in ICCL v Microsoft
by Ryan Ferry and Edwina Kelly