High Court Rejects Kerry Executive's Defamation Injunction Bid

The High Court has firmly rejected an application for an interlocutory injunction brought by a Kerry businesswoman against online news outlet TheJournal.ie and several related defendants. Delivering his ruling in Dublin, Mr Justice Liam Kennedy dismissed the application brought under Section 33 of the Defamation Act 2009, branding the interim relief sought by Michelle Keane as particularly unmeritorious and reaffirming the vital constitutional protections afforded to journalists and independent fact-checkers.

The dispute arose in the wake of an article published on 9 December 2025 by The Journal Media Limited, which addressed misleading public assertions made on social media regarding the quantum of financial aid provided by the Irish State to Ukraine. While the plaintiff did not challenge the primary thrust of the fact-checking article, she initiated defamation proceedings concerning an incidental sentence describing her as an individual who runs a company selling water. Following complaints from Ms Keane, the publication amended the phrasing to state that she runs an enterprise which intends to enter the luxury water market.

The Dispute Over Luxury Water Claims

Ms Keane, who appeared in court as a litigant in person, serves as the Chief Executive Officer of Kingdom Water Ltd, an enterprise established to promote natural spring water sourced from wells situated on her private lands in Knocknagoshel, County Kerry. Before the court, she contended that neither she nor Kingdom Water had ever completed a commercial sale of water. Consequently, she argued that the characterisation of her as selling water was false, defamatory, and carried the damaging innuendo that she had acted dishonestly or deceptively in her wider business affairs.

In opposing the injunction application, counsel for the media outlet, Tom Murphy BL, instructed by commercial law firm RDJ LLP, demonstrated that the defendant was fully entitled to advance robust statutory defences, specifically truth and public interest publication under Section 26 of the Defamation Act 2009. The defendants placed extensive reliance on the plaintiff’s own marketing materials and social media activity to demonstrate that the reporting was grounded in public domain facts. These materials included promotional imagery of Ms Keane posing with bottled spring water celebrating its imminent commercialisation, corporate literature stating the business intended to operate within the multi-billion luxury hydration market, and a trademark registered as Heavenly Kingdom Water.

High Legal Bar for Section 33 Injunctions

Under Irish law, obtaining a prior restraint order against the press before a full plenary trial takes place represents a formidable legal hurdle. Section 33 of the Defamation Act 2009 stipulates that the High Court may only grant an injunction prohibiting the publication or republication of an alleged defamatory statement if the applicant demonstrates that the statement is unmistakably defamatory and that the publisher has no defence that is reasonably likely to succeed. This threshold reflects the judiciary’s traditional reluctance to curtail the freedom of expression protected under Article 40.6.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann.

In scrutinising the merits, Mr Justice Kennedy observed that The Journal had comprehensively demonstrated an entitlement to assert bona fide defences that would make the granting of injunctive relief wholly inappropriate at an interlocutory stage. The court determined that even if the statement were assumed to be capable of bearing a defamatory imputation, the existence of viable statutory defences, particularly under Section 26, precluded the court from enjoining the media organization prior to a trial of the action.

Protection for Journalism and Public Interest Reporting

The judgment placed significant emphasis on the broader societal function performed by the Fourth Estate, with the judge noting that the controversial statement constituted merely a minor aspect of an otherwise substantial, public-interest report. The High Court stressed that the judicial system must remain exceedingly cautious about interfering with freedom of speech or impeding the legitimate investigative and debunking duties performed by journalists and professional fact-checking teams.

The court also criticised procedural deficiencies in the plaintiff’s approach, highlighting an apparently gratuitous joinder of unnecessary individual and corporate defendants, including company directors Brian Fallon and Eamonn Fallon, as well as holding company DML Capital Unlimited Company. Mr Justice Kennedy identified The Journal Media Limited as the sole proper defendant to the dispute.

While the ruling clarifies that Ms Keane retains the right to pursue her defamation claim to a full plenary trial on properly particularised pleadings against the appropriate legal entity, her attempt to muzzle republication in the interim has failed entirely. Following the dismissal of the application, the court confirmed that the defendants are presumptively entitled to recover their legal costs against Ms Keane on the standard party-and-party basis.