BUSINESSMAN AND FORMER presidential candidate, Peter Casey has been awarded €140,000 in damages after the High Court ruled he had been defamed in a post on social media that his provision of accommodation for Ukrainian refugees was “akin to human trafficking and inhumane.”

Mr Justice David Nolan found that Buncrana resident, Kim McMenamin, had defamed Mr Casey in a post placed on Facebook on April 25, 2023 and ordered him to pay the businessman €120,000 in damages plus €20,000 in aggravated damages.

The defamatory post was posted on a Facebook page of a group called Buncrana Community Watch by the defendant who was the group’s administrator.

The court heard Mr Casey sought to help Ukrainian refugees by accommodating them at Ludden House – a property he owned in Buncrana, Co Donegal.

The businessman also announced that he intended that any profit from the rental of Ludden House – a former B&B and nursing home – to the Government would be distributed to the people of Donegal and Ukraine.

Mr Casey, who was represented by solicitor, Niall Tansey of Damien Tansey Solicitors LLP, said he had spent considerable money on converting the property to a very high standard to accommodate refugees.

The defamatory post claimed that workers at Ludden House had been informed that “moving unvetted people around like cattle and then warehousing them in office cubicles for profit is akin to human trafficking and inhumane.”

The court heard that Mr McMenamin, who is a member of a group called National Alliance – Irish People – had contested the recent local elections on a campaign of opposing “draconian” lockdowns and “undocumented, uncontrolled mass immigration”.

Mr Justice Nolan noted that it was remarkable that Mr McMenamin was able to post up a photograph of damage to the upper storey of Ludden House on his Facebook page on the day after a fire had broken out at the property on the night of May 11, 2023.

The judge said an accompanying post had commented that there had been no reports about the fire from mainstream or local media, while the defendant had complained in other posts about the lack of media coverage about the incident.

The court heard Mr McMenamin encouraged people to share his post as widely as possible as he claimed news of the fire was “deliberately being kept quiet.”

“It certainly seems to be the case that the defendant was very anxious that the fact that the building had been damaged should be made known and to use his own words ‘to stop promoting bringing people in,’” the judge remarked.

The court heard there was no response to a written request by Mr Casey’s solicitor asking Mr McMenamin to remove the defamatory post.

In his statement of claim, Mr Casey argued the post meant that he was intending to house migrants in accommodation in inhumane circumstances and that he was involved in conduct akin to illegal human trafficking.

He said the post suggested he treated people like animals and was a person who prioritised profit over human welfare, and was a person “not of good standing” and “of reprehensible morals.”

The court heard Mr McMenamin had taken no steps to defend his position and had evaded service of the legal proceedings.

In his ruling on the assessment of damages, Mr Justice Nolan said he was satisfied that the people intended to reside in Ludden House were not unvetted but women and children fleeing “from the appalling atrocities which Putin’s government imposed upon the people of Ukraine.”

The judge said he was also satisfied that the premises was “nothing like office cubicles and in fact, was very fine accommodation.”

He said he was also satisfied based on Mr Casey’s evidence that it was never his intention to make a profit from housing refugees.

Mr Justice Nolan said there was no human trafficking but “a very genuine attempt” by Mr Casey to try and relieve the pain and suffering of women and children from Ukraine.

Finding that the words used by Mr McMenamin were untrue and defamatory, the judge noted that the defendant had over 2,000 friends on his Facebook page which had now risen to 4,000.

He also pointed out that the post had 181 reactions, 45 comments and was shared 180 times.

In assessing damages, the judge said Mr Casey was clearly distressed and although a public figure was somewhat resistant in expressing in court just how much it had affected him.

“It is clear however that it was very stressful, hurtful and upsetting and affected himself and his family, including his daughter who had to be hospitalised,” the judge said.

He also observed that the defendant was trying to undermine Mr Casey’s good work and had refused to take down the post for many months.

He noted there were no steps taken by Mr McMenamin to remediate the defamatory remarks.

Mr Justice Nolan said he was satisfied that Mr Casey has a fine reputation in society which had been harmed by such defamatory remarks

The judge said he was struck by evidence which showed the defamatory post was still in place for at least nine months after a court order issued in November 2023 directed him to remove it.

He also said it was another aggravating factor that the defendant had repeated defamatory remarks when he described Ludden House as a direct provision centre when it was no such thing.

Mr Justice Nolan said it was patently clear that Mr McMenamin had “played ducks and drakes” with the plaintiff and the court.

He ruled that the defendant’s refusal to take down a post containing hurtful, damaging and defamatory remarks was a breach of a court order and a contempt of court.

The judge added: “He has refused to defend the case, and therefore must face the consequences of his actions.”

In reaction to the award of damages, Mr Casey said taking a High Court action to defend his name and reputation was “the very last thing I wanted.”

The businessman said Mr McMenamin had made statements about him on social media which he knew were false and then repeatedly refused to take then down when asked “multiple times.”

Mr Casey acknowledged that social media can be a very positive way of informing large numbers of people of good deeds, actions and causes but that it can also be used and abused to bully and torment people who do not have the ability or financial resources to defend themselves.

He added: “I hope this High Court decision will send a very strong message to cyber bullies. Think before you post, as there may well be consequences.”