High Court Costs Awarded to TheJournal.ie in Defamation Row

The High Court has ordered lay litigant Michelle Keane to pay the legal costs of publisher TheJournal.ie and three associated defendants following her unsuccessful bid to secure an interlocutory injunction in a defamation claim. In a reserved costs ruling delivered on 16 October 2026, Mr Justice Kennedy affirmed the long-standing legal principle that costs typically follow the event, dismissing arguments that the parties should bear their own expenses or await the outcome of a full plenary trial.

Failed Injunction Application

The dispute arises out of defamation proceedings initiated by Ms Keane under Record Number 2026 222 P against The Journal Media Limited (trading as TheJournal.ie), corporate entity DML Capital Unlimited Company, and individual defendants Brian Fallon and Eamonn Fallon. In September 2026, the High Court refused an application brought by Ms Keane seeking far-reaching interim and interlocutory injunctive relief against the media outlet and its related parties.

Refusing the application on 9 September 2026, Mr Justice Kennedy held that Ms Keane had failed to satisfy the rigorous threshold necessary to secure extraordinary pre-trial restraint orders in defamation actions. Under Irish law and the Defamation Act 2009, interim injunctions against news organisations are granted only in exceptionally rare instances where a plaintiff demonstrates there is no realistic prospect of a valid defence, such as truth or fair and reasonable publication, succeeding at trial.

Unnecessary Joinder of Defendants

A central feature of the court's earlier determination was Ms Keane’s decision to name four distinct defendants without articulating any legal or factual foundation for proceeding against at least three of them. In his substantive judgment, Mr Justice Kennedy had voiced serious concern over the growing practice of unnecessary joinder in defamation proceedings, which exposes individual directors and holding entities to avoidable legal exposure and anxiety.

When the matter returned to court for determinations on legal costs, Ms Keane’s status as a litigant in person came under judicial scrutiny. The plaintiff advanced various alternatives to a conventional costs award, urging the court to make no order as to costs, to direct that costs be ‘in the cause’ to await the plenary trial outcome, or to restrict any cost liability to a single set payable exclusively to the operating publisher.

Costs Follow the Event Under Superior Court Rules

Rejecting Ms Keane’s submissions, Mr Justice Kennedy reiterated that under Order 99, rule 2(3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts—supplemented by provisions of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015—interlocutory application costs are presumptively awarded to the wholly successful party. While the court retains wide residual discretion, it will only depart from this fundamental default position where liability cannot justly be ascertained or where special circumstances dictate.

The court emphasised that while the earlier ruling did not bar Ms Keane from properly particularising and prosecuting a legitimate claim against appropriate defendants at a plenary hearing, an ultimate win at trial would not retroactively justify this premature interlocutory motion. Ms Keane had deliberately joined each defendant, compelling each party to retain legal counsel to resist an application that carried serious reputational and operational ramifications.

Party-and-Party Costs and Adjudication

Addressing the argument that the defendants had engaged shared legal representation, Mr Justice Kennedy clarified that common representation does not strip individual co-defendants of their basic entitlement to legal costs. The defendants, represented by Tom Murphy BL and instructed by commercial firm RDJ LLP, were wholly successful in defeating every relief sought in the interlocutory motion.

The judge noted that while shared representation may ultimately reduce the aggregate legal costs incurred across all four respondents, this remains an accounting and taxation matter rather than a basis to deprive successful defendants of an order. In the absence of an agreed settlement between the parties regarding the monetary figure, the final bill of costs will be determined on a standard party-and-party basis by the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicators.

Concluding that the case presented no novel questions of general public importance or exceptional factors warranting a departure from normal practice, the court confirmed the dismissal of the injunction with costs to the defendants. The ruling serves as an important reminder for self-represented litigants navigating the Irish Superior Courts of the substantial financial risks associated with issuing unmerited injunctions and indiscriminately multiplying defendants in civil actions.