A Landmark Moment For Press Freedom In Ireland

Defamation law in Ireland seeks to strike the right balance between competing rights, when a person's constitutional right to protect their good name and good reputation from unfair attack (Article 40.3.2) comes into conflict with the right to freedom of expression in the public interest (Article 40.6.1°(i)).

Minister Jim O'Callaghan announced on 11 February 2026 that the passage of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill through both houses of the Oireachtas had completed. Newsbrand Ireland's chief executive hailed this major defamation reform as a "landmark moment for press freedom in Ireland". Whilst the Minister said: “This is an important Bill that balances and safeguards the rights to freedom of expression with the protection of a person's good name and reputation, and the right of access to justice…reduce legal costs and delays..."

Prior to the enactment of the 2009 Defamation Act, following a seven-day jury trial a plaintiff was awarded €1,872,000 damages which was later reduced on appeal by the Supreme Court to €1.25 damages. The defendant newspaper had complained at that time to the European Court of Human Rights that the award was excessive and violated its right to freedom of expression. In agreement the court held: “Unreasonably high damages for defamation claims can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression” and recognised the importance of domestic procedural safeguards to prevent disproportionate awards from being granted.

In another case a businessman was awarded €10m damages by a jury, at that time the highest libel award in the history of the Irish state following the court finding the Northern Ireland company had defamed him when it issued a press release. The Court of Appeal reduced it to €1m damages due to a finding that the jury damages had been disproportionate having regard to the gravity of the libel and the chilling effect of disproportionately high awards on constitutional free expression rights. The Supreme Court ultimately awarded €250k.

Whilst the reliance of juries in Ireland had been abolished for most all other civil cases including personal injuries by the Courts Act 1988, the 2009 Act continued the reliance on juries in High Court defamation cases. The 2009 Act did introduce the ability for the trial judge to give directions to a jury regarding the assessment of damages. The most notable jury trial heard recently in Ireland was following a seven day trial when a jury awarded former Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams the sum of €100,000 in damages for defamation after finding he had been defamed by a BBC Spotlight television programme that had been broadcast in 2016.

In 2022, the Supreme Court laid down extremely useful guidance for damages in defamation claims in Higgins v Irish Aviation Authority, but that guidance was not binding on a jury who is the final arbiter of the award. Jury awards therefore continued to be impossible to predict and unlike a Judge determined award, jury decisions are devoid of a written judgement explaining the rationale behind decisions so precedent from previous cases was largely meaningless.

Whilst proposals for reform had been recommended in 2022 the announcement yesterday by the Minister reflects the first major reform of Irish defamation law since the 2009 Act came into force on 1 January 2010. The 2026 reforms bring Irish defamation law more in line with other jurisdictions such as England & Wales and to some extent alignment with north of the border in Northern Ireland. By virtue of the Defamation Act 2013, juries have essentially been disposed of in E&W and similarly the Defamation Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 dispensed with the choice of jury trials as of right.

Ireland now seeks to follow those modern reforms and abolish jury trials in defamation actions.

Jury trials have been criticised for making trials longer than if it were heard alone by an experienced judge, and the fact that lengthier trials resulted in substantially higher legal costs for all parties resulting in defamation actions only being accessible to the rich and famous. Dispensing with juries was also argued more favourable as it would result in more transparency as to decision making and clarity as to assessment of damages guidance from precedent cases and importantly it would avoid the risk of disproportionate and unpredictable awards involving high legal costs which together resulted in chilling effects on freedom of expression particularly investigative journalism or public debate on public interest issues.

In Ireland a corporate entity can also sue for defamation, but the modernisation of Irish defamation law now proposed to introduce a "serious harm" test, so that a corporate defamation cannot be pursued unless the defamation caused or is likely to have caused it serious harm. The introduction of this threshold mirrors Section 1(2) of England and Wales's Defamation Act 2013, which was designed to deter corporations from pursuing defamation claims over trivial matters that have no real impact on their commercial interests. Notably, the Irish Bill applies this test only to corporate claimants, whereas the English Act applies it to all claimants. In Northern Ireland, no statutory serious harm test exists for corporate plaintiffs, and the common law approach remains. However, in practice north of the border it is trite law that some sort of financial loss would be evidenced in such cases. In a case brought against Facebook by an anonymised corporate litigant, AB Limited and two of its officers, the court considered that the award made in favour of the individual directors sufficiently vindicated the corporate reputation and made no damages award to AB Limited.

The Irish Defamation Bill also introduces groundbreaking procedural safeguards to address risks around weaponizing defamation laws by initiating a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPPs). Targets will now have an anti-SLAPP defence and the ability to apply for early dismissal of SLAPP actions and declarations an action is a SLAPP. This implements the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive which far exceed the current anti-SLAPP framework in England and Wales which is confined to an expression and disclosure of information about economic crimes by virtue of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Northern Ireland has no statutory anti-SLAPP provisions. The Irish legislation also introduces an amended and more simplified defence for publication in the public interest, providing enhanced protection for responsible journalism.

Overall, Ireland has proposed substantial and modern legal reform to defamation laws and the legislative reform proposed addresses many of the concerns raised by the stakeholders during public consultations. It goes some way in providing procedural safeguards to provide a more consistent and predictable redress which should result in more access to justice from the public rather than being largely confined to those with deep pockets. The enhanced protection for responsible public interest journalism and public participation on matters of public interest and which are the lifeblood of a functioning democracy is remarkable together with the transposition of the EU Anti SLAPP Directive which will provide a minimum floor of common procedural measures throughout EU member states to deter abusive and misuse of defamation laws to intimidate and censor public interest free speech.

The legislation now awaits signature by the President before being commenced. The Bill can be found here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.