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.