A JUDGE HAS said he will rule on an appeal by former Sunday Independent Columnist Eoghan Harris against the Circuit Court’s decision to transfer his defamation action against journalist Aoife Moore to the High Court at a later date.

Harris had claimed in proceedings he brought before the Circuit Court that he was defamed in a tweet posted by Moore about him in early May 2021.

He claims that in the post she wrongly accused him of directly sending her sexualised messages on Twitter.

In her defence she denies defaming Harris in a tweet which she says was posted after it emerged Harris was involved in an account which had posted defamatory material about her.

Moore, and a another journalist Allison Morris, have brought separate High Court proceedings against Harris claiming that they were defamed in posts on a twitter account called ”Barbara J. Pym”, allegedly operated by Harris and others on dates between 2020 and 2021.

Moore claims that she was defamed in those tweets which she says called into question her journalistic objectivity and that her reporting was partisan in favour of Sinn Féin and the wider republican movement in Ireland.

She also claims that the tweets referred to her in a sexualised manner. Harris denies the claims.

Harris’s action against Moore was due to be heard before the Circuit Civil Court earlier this year.

However following a pre-trial application by Moore’s lawyers before Christmas, Judge John O’Connor ruled that Harris’s case should be transferred to the High Court.

Moore, represented by Thomas Hogan SC, and Conan Fegan Bl instructed by Phoenix Law solicitors, claimed that because there was an overlap on the issues surrounding the claims, boths cases should be heard together in the High Court.

Harris’s appeal against that decision to transfer his claim to the High Court came before Justice Paul Burns on today.

Represented by Remy Farrell SC appearing with Hugh McDowell Bl, and instructed by solicitor Robert Dore, Harris says that while there were some similarities, his claim against Ms Moore is “quite net”.

It should be heard separately, and before a judge of the Circuit Court, from the actions pending before the High Court, counsel said.

Farrell said his client rejects Moore’s contentions that his client should have brought a counterclaim against Moore in the High Court proceedings.

Harris was not under any legal obligation to do so, counsel said.

Counsel that Harris was perfectly entitled to make a claim before the Circuit Court despite the fact that High Court proceedings against him were commenced first in time, and even if the outcome in those proceedings was different to what the High Court decides in Moore’s action.

Any suggestion that Harris is not entitled to bring his claim before the Circuit Court merely because Moore’s had brought her defamation action before his was “quite radical,” counsel added.

He compared the application to have Harris’s action taken out of the Circuit Court to strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP), which he said is a form of litigation designed to stop somebody from bringing a claim.

Counsel said his client wants his claim determined as soon as possible, due to factors including Harris’s age and health, and that it can take some time before High Court defamation actions are finally heard.

In his submnissions to the court Hogan said both cases should be heard by the High Court, rather than have two separate hearings before different courts over claims that arise out of the same background.

The reality of the situation counsel said is that the claims “could not be divorced from each other.”

Counsel said it his side’s intention to seek to have both Moore’s and Harris’s actions consolidated.

Rather than bring a separate claim before the Circuit Court, Harris should have brought a counterclaim against Moore in the High Court proceedings, counsel submitted.

In reply to the judge, counsel accepted that the proceedings against other parties alleged to have been involved in the posting of the allegedly defamatory tweets about Moore are in progress.

However counsel said that his side has sought a defence to Moore’s High Court claims from Harris’s lawyers in order to progress the claim.

Following the conclusion of submissions from the parties, the judge reserved his decision, and said he would deliver his judgement at a later date.