In Tracey v Irish Times Limited & Ors, Tracey v Independent Star Limited & Anor, Tracey v Independent Newspapers [Ireland] Limited & Ors, Tracey v Independent Newspapers [Ireland] Limited & Ors [2025] IEHC 221, the defendants brought a motion seeking to have all four sets of proceedings heard simultaneously.

The defendants argued that there was a substantial overlap of evidence, witnesses, issues of law and alleged losses claimed by the plaintiff. They further stated that hearing the proceedings simultaneously would save court time and avoid incurring unnecessary costs.

The plaintiff counterargued that a separate judge and jury should hear each trial. He maintained that while the articles he alleges defamed him were similar, the wording and headlines differed. The plaintiff also emphasised that the four newspapers had different readerships, potentially resulting in varying levels of damages for each claim.

Ms Justice Bolger began her decision by stating that the four articles were based on a report of District Court proceedings that the same court reporter prepared. Furthermore, “albeit slightly differently worded”, the defendants’ pleadings raised the same legal defence. Bolger J went on to say that damages awarded against a defendant would take into account any of the damages awarded against any of the other defendants.

Bolger J was satisfied that the court had jurisdiction to hear the proceedings simultaneously. This would result in a clear saving of court time and costs, reduce the risk of irreconcilable decisions of different judges and juries and avoid overlapping damages. She noted this was a correct approach unless a simultaneous trial would cause an injustice to any parties.

Bolger J referenced the Supreme Court decision of Bradley v  Independent  Star  Newspapers  Limited, which directed trials to be heard simultaneously. In Bradley, the court stated, “[i]t would be quite wrong to permit the plaintiffs to continue with two separate actions arising from substantially the same libel.”

Bolger J ultimately held that the four sets of proceedings should be heard simultaneously due to the overlap in the facts, legal principles, witnesses and heads of damages in each of the plaintiff’s proceedings. The court was not satisfied that this would result in any irremediable risk of injustice to the plaintiff. Even if such a risk existed, it was outweighed by the factors favouring a simultaneous hearing.

This decision reflects the courts’ practical approach to managing multiple defamation proceedings arising from the same issues. In acceding to such applications, the courts seek to increase efficiency in the use of court time and reduce costs for parties to proceedings.

For more information, please get in touch with Adele Hall, Niamh McCabe or your usual William Fry contact.

Contributed by Nickolas Dergach.