Paddy Cosgrave is being sued for defamation by businessman Robert Quirke over a tweet posted on the Internet Summit co-founder’s Twitter account final yr.
Mr Quirke, who’s the chief govt of Roqu Group, which has various pursuits in areas together with media administration and the organisation of festivals, claims he was recognized in a tweet by Mr Cosgrave on March twentieth, 2021, that he claims was clearly calculated to wreck the plaintiff’s status.
Mr Cosgrave denies the claims, and in his defence alleges his assertion was the reality.
It’s alleged the tweet referred to a multi-million-euro deal involving Mr Quirke and Roqu and the HSE for the availability of ventilators from China.
In his motion, Mr Quirke, with an tackle at Tigne Level, Sliema, in Malta, claims he and his companies have been defamed and broken by the tweet, and seeks damages from Mr Cosgrave.
Following requests from Mr Quirke’s attorneys, Mr Cosgrave, it’s alleged, didn’t delete the tweet, or publish a press release to retract or cease repeating the allegations made about Mr Quirke and his enterprise.
A pretrial challenge within the case got here earlier than Mr Justice Garrett Simons within the Excessive Court docket on Monday. The events have been earlier than the choose arising out of a dispute over the authorized prices of a movement introduced within the proceedings.
Mr Quirke’s attorneys introduced a movement searching for judgment in default of a defence being lodged on behalf Mr Cosgrave. The court docket heard the movement was introduced after Mr Cosgrave’s defence to the defamation declare was lodged a day outdoors the prescribed authorized closing dates for the trade of paperwork in proceedings.
Mr Quirke’s attorneys claimed Mr Cosgrave’s attorneys had delayed in responding to the declare and had lodged their defence outdoors of the prescribed closing dates allowed by the courts.
Mr Quirke’s attorneys stated their consumer was entitled to carry a movement searching for judgment towards Mr Cosgrave within the absence of a defence. Whereas a defence was subsequently lodged, Mr Quirke was entitled to both the prices of bringing his movement, or that the prices be adjourned to the total listening to of the defamation declare.
Mr Cosgrave, represented by Tom Hogan SC, argued that no order ought to have been made concerning the prices of the movement searching for judgment.
Counsel stated Mr Quirke’s solicitors have been advised by Mr Cosgrave’s attorneys that the submitting of defence had been delayed and that it will be lodged a day outdoors of the prescribed time.
It was not cheap, counsel submitted, for an order for prices to be made towards his consumer, who he stated required time to make a full defence within the defamation motion.
Mr Justice Simons stated that the foundations of court docket had been streamlined to assist keep away from conditions comparable to this. A late lodgment of a defence ought to incur a price penalty of €750, the choose stated. As a substitute, what had occurred on this case, he stated, was that no settlement had been reached concerning the prices, ensuing within the matter taking on beneficial court docket time – leading to prices many multiples of that determine.
Whereas there was blame on either side, the choose stated it was his view the plaintiff was being “intransigent and unreasonable” in searching for an order for prices or that they be reserved pending the result of the total listening to. Such an software was “misconceived”, the choose added.
He awarded Mr Cosgrave all of his prices in regard to the plaintiff’s movement for judgment in default of defence, in addition to the prices for Monday’s listening to.
Mr Quirke’s defamation declare will come earlier than the court docket at a later date.