Elliot (Thomas) v Philip Flanagan
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Stephens J |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] NIQB 8 |
| Year | 2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 03 February 2016 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2016] NIQB 8 Ref:
STE9849
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
03/02/2016
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
BETWEEN:
THOMAS ELLIOT
Plaintiff:
and
PHILIP FLANAGAN
Defendant:
________
STEPHENS J
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff, Thomas Elliot, brings this application to enforce the defendant’s,
Philip Flanagan’s, qualified offer to make amends in relation to a defamatory
statement published by the defendant on his Twitter account on 1 May 2014. The
agreed defamatory meaning of the statement is that “the plaintiff was responsible for
harassing and shooting people during his service with the UDR.” In the event the
only outstanding issue for my determination is the assessment of the amount of
compensation to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
[2] David Dunlop appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and Desmond Fahy appeared
on behalf of the defendant. I am grateful to both counsel for their detailed analysis
of the case and for their assistance.
Factual background
[3] The plaintiff is from, and was educated in, County Fermanagh. He initially
followed his family’s tradition of a career in farming, attending Enniskillen College
of Agriculture and then for a period of time running the family farm. He still farms
on a part time basis but, in the event, he decided to enter politics becoming a
member of the Ulster Unionist Party. He was first elected as an Ulster Unionist
Councillor on Fermanagh District Council in 2001 and since that date he has been
and remains, an elected public representative. He was a member of the Northern
Ireland Assembly between 2003 and 2015 and in May 2015 he was elected as the
2
Member of Parliament for the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
Between September 2010 and March 2012, he was the leader of the Ulster Unionist
Party.
[4] The plaintiff is not only a politician and a farmer but also between 1982 and
1992 he served in the Ulster Defence Regiment (“the UDR”) and then between 1992
and 1999 he served in the Royal Irish Rangers which due to amalgamations became
the Royal Irish Regiment (“the RIR”). His service was on a part time basis except for
a period of 2 years and 9 months when he was a full time member. The plaintiff
gave evidence, which I accept, that he had an entirely clear disciplinary record in
relation to his service in both the UDR and in the RIR. I find that his work as a
farmer and his subsequent association with farming, his work as a politician and his
service in the UDR and the RIR all formed core aspects of the plaintiff’s life.
[5] The defendant, Phillip Flanagan, is also a politician from, and a public
representative for, County Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He is a member of Sinn
Fein and also a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
[6] It can be seen that as at the date of the publication on 1 May 2014 both the
plaintiff and the defendant were elected members of the Northern Ireland Assembly,
they both held responsible positions representing the public, though they were
members of different political parties.
[7] On 1 May 2014 the plaintiff had appeared on the Stephen Nolan radio
programme. Following that appearance and at 9.45 a.m., the defendant published a
tweet on his Twitter account in the following terms:
“Tom Elliot talks to @StephenNolan about the past. I
wonder if he will reveal how many people he harassed or
shot as a member of the UDR.”
The tweet was taken down from his Twitter account by the defendant within an
hour of the time of it being posted. The plaintiff gave evidence, which was not
challenged, that despite the tweet being taken down from the defendant’s Twitter
account it still remained accessible on the internet, on social media sites and on
political blogs though this was “some time ago” with no definition being brought to
how long ago this was. At the date of trial the plaintiff was not sure whether the
Tweet had by then been deleted from all these locations on the internet and I infer
that this lack of clarity was because he had not checked for “some time.” The
plaintiff did not specify what search terms he had used in order to find the tweet on
the internet when he last searched for it “some time ago.” There was no evidence as
to whether the search term had to be focussed or whether it only required the
insertion of the name of either the plaintiff or the defendant into search engines, such
as Google, for the tweet to appear. There was no evidence as to whether the tweet
would appear on the first page of the results of an internet search or within a
reasonable number of pages of search results. I will proceed on the basis that after
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
Austin (Mark) v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
...the balance is a consideration of the likely level of an award in Northern Ireland if the matter proceeded to trial. In Elliot v Flanagan [2016] NIQB 8 and at paragraphs [26] to [36] inclusive I set out the legal principles in relation to the assessment of compensation for defamation. In pa......
-
Flanagan (Philip) v AIG (Europe) Limited
...is informed by the judgment in the action brought by Mr Elliott against Mr Flanagan which was delivered on 3 February 2016 under citation [2016] NIQB 8. Both parties included that earlier judgment in the papers relevant to the determination of this action. The plaintiff gave evidence in thi......
-
Arlene Foster and Christian Jessen
...and the tweet remained on the defendant’s Twitter page along with all the responses and, as was stated by Stephens J in Elliot v Flanagan [2017] NI 264 “the speed of response is a particularly relevant matter to be taken into account in defamation proceedings.” When the defendant did respon......
-
Ragoonath v Roget
...and the value placed by the court on an apology albeit in assessing damages. See also Cairns v. Modi [2013] 1 WLR, Elliott v. Flanagan [2016] NIQB 8. 57 However some courts are of the view that more needs to be done in utilizing an apology As alternative means of compensation. Recently Skwe......
Request a trial to view additional results