Michelle O'Neill and John Carson
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Master Bell |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NIMaster 9 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NIMaster 9
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: 2023NIMaster9
Delivered: 07/11/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
------
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
------
BETWEEN:
Michelle O’Neill
Plaintiff
and
John Carson
Defendant.
------
Master Bell
Introduction
[1] On 30 April 2021 Mr Carson wrote an offensive and misogynistic post
about Ms O’Neill on his Facebook page which stated:
“She will be put back in her kennel.”
[2] On 8 February 2022 Ms O’Neill issued a writ against Mr Carson
claiming that the words were defamatory. No appearance was filed by Mr
Carson to defend the writ and on 13 December 2022 Ms O’Neill obtained
default judgment against him. She has now applied for an assessment of
damages under Order 37 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature.
[3] The statement of claim, in addition to making allegations of
defamation, also alleged breach of Ms O’Neill’s personal data rights under the
Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation (UK).
Counsel, however, informed me that potential damages for any breach of the
GDPR were not being pursued because it was recognised that any damages
under that head would involve substantial double counting.
2
[4] I am grateful to Mr Girvan, who appeared on behalf of Ms O’Neill and
Mr Bready, who appeared on behalf of Mr Carson, for their helpful
submissions.
Assessing Damages for Defamation
[5] The purpose of damages in a defamation action was set out by the
586, in the following terms:
“The successful plaintiff in a defamation action is entitled to
recover, as general compensatory damages, such sum as will
compensate him for the wrong he has suffered. That sum
must compensate him for the damage to his reputation;
vindicate his good name; and take account of the distress,
hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication has
caused. In assessing the appropriate damages for injury to
reputation the most important factor is the gravity of the
libel; the more closely it touches the plaintiff's personal
integrity, professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty
and the core attributes of his personality, the more serious it
is likely to be. The extent of publication is also very relevant:
a libel published to millions has a greater potential to cause
damage than a libel published to a handful of people. A
successful plaintiff may properly look to an award of
damages to vindicate his reputation: but the significance of
this is much greater in a case where the defendant asserts the
truth of the libel and refuses any retraction or apology than
in a case where the defendant acknowledges the falsity of
what was published and publicly expresses regret that the
libellous publication took place. It is well established that
compensatory damages may and should compensate for
additional injury caused to the plaintiff's feelings by the
defendant's conduct of the action, as when he persists in an
unfounded assertion that the publication was true, or refuses
to apologise, or cross-examines the plaintiff in a wounding
or insulting way.”
[6] This summary of the key principles by the Master of the Rolls was
(QB) where he said:
"[21] I have added the numbering in this passage, which
identifies the three distinct functions performed by an award
of damages for libel. I have added the lettering also to
identify, for ease of reference, the factors listed by Sir Thomas
To continue reading
Request your trial