THE HIGH COURT has put a stay on costs in the proceedings which decided that Declan Ganley’s defamation case against CNN should be heard in Ireland.

Earlier this month, it was ruled that the defamation action should continue to be heard in Ireland, and not in the United States as sought by CNN, in a win for Ganley. 

Mr Justice Garrett Simons this morning said that both parties in the case were in agreement that Ganley is entitled to his costs in the matter. However, he said it was “appropriate” to grant the stay at this stage. 

Ganley and US-based Rivada Networks Ltd are suing international news broadcaster CNN for defamation. Cable News International Ltd and Turner Broadcasting System Europe Ltd are also named defendants in the case.

It is alleged that in a broadcast on 20 October 2020, CNN suggested that the White House had pressured the Pentagon to award a no-bid, multi-million contract to Rivada Networks to build a 5G telecommunications network for the US Department of Defence.

The company made a proposal after the US Department of Defence made a competitive and open request for information relating to the project. It is alleged that the publication wrongly meant that Ganley and Rivada had initiated a corrupt process to obtain the contract.

Ganley and the company say they are “completely innocent” of such a claim, and say the contents of the publication are “entirely unfounded”, are “grossly defamatory” of them, and have caused them reputational damage and loss.

They also claim that the publication was published with malicious intent, in pursuit of a political and commercial agenda of CNN’s owners AT&T.

Last year, CNN asked the High Court to put a stay on the Irish proceedings and determine that the US is the appropriate forum for hearing the case.

Ganley and Rivada opposed the application and said the case should remain in Ireland, stating that any claim in the US would be statute-barred because the limitation period for taking an action is one year after the publication of the alleged defamatory statement.

Earlier this month, the High Court heard arguments from both sides on why the case should or should not be heard in the US rather than Ireland.

In his ruling that the case should be heard in Ireland, Mr Justice Simons said that it was now too late for Ganley to institute proceedings in Washington because the one-year limitation period had expired and CNN were not “prepared to waive the limitation period”.

“It would be unjust to stay the proceedings before the Irish Courts as it would result in plaintiffs, who are unblameworthy, being denied access to the courts in either jurisdiction,” he said.

The case, which is expected to go to trial, will now proceed in Ireland. 

‘Inflict a fatal blow’

This morning, Mark Harty SC, for Ganley, asked the court to execute an order for costs immediately. 

He told the court that CNN brought the application to have the case heard in the US with the intention “to knock out” Ganley’s claim and “inflict a fatal blow”. 

Mr Justice Simons told Harty that his client may feel aggrieved “that there was an attempt to pull the rug from under you”, adding that “at the level of the High Court, you’ve been found to be correct”. 

However, he said he was not convinced that that had any affect on the costs. 

“This was an interlocutory order. It was heard over three days in total – staggering – to allow the parties to file additional affidavit evidence in the interim,” Mr Justice Simons said. 

“The fact that it was a strike out application or a strikeout below, as it were, doesn’t, as I say, affect a cost analysis. So it seems to me, therefore, that a stay is appropriate.”

The judge ordered a stay on the execution of the cost order pending the determination of the proceedings at the level of the High Court. He said he added that proviso because “different considerations may apply” once the proceedings conclude at the High Court.  

He also said that in the event that an appeal is brought against the order on the interlocutory application, there will be a stay pending the determination of that appeal. 

The judge said the stay does not extend to the adjudication process, and said it is “certainly open to the plaintiff if it so wishes to commence the adjudication process”.

He said the costs should include the cost of an overnight transcript and various sets of legal submissions, as well as the cost of international experts to file two legal reports on US law and how it differs from Irish law in the event that the case was heard in the US. 

Mr Justice Simons added that cost to the order.