In Ireland, a plaintiff typically has a timeframe of one year following the date of publication of the defamatory statement to institute defamatory proceedings in accordance with section 11(2)(c) of the Statute of Limitations 1957.

This limitation period is extendable by order of the court for a maximum of two years.  In deciding whether to grant an extension, the court will have regard to the matters in Section 11(3A), including a balancing of the prejudice to the plaintiff and defendant if an extension is granted. We previously considered the Irish Court of Appeal’s approach to the extension of time in the context of online defamation in this article.

In Logan v Wilson & Anor [2025] IEHC 284, the plaintiff instituted proceedings in August 2023 claiming damages for defamation arising out of multiple publications: (i) two emails and a telephone call in August 2021 and (ii) an email in July 2023. The complaint regarding the July 2023 publication was issued within the prescribed one-year time limit, but complaints about the August 2021 publications were made outside the time limit.  The plaintiff brought an application before the High Court (Court) for a direction under the Statute of Limitations extending the one-year limitation period to two years to bring the August 2021 publications within the statutory limitation period.

Addressing the delay in bringing her claim, the plaintiff stated that she did not want to cause trouble and problems for the charity she was associated with, as it was already struggling due to the Covid 19 pandemic.  The additional reason put forward by the plaintiff was that she had to home-school her three young children throughout the pandemic.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s reasoning for failing to bring proceedings within one year was not cogent or substantially persuasive. The Court further found that the legislative provisions require the plaintiff to satisfy s.11(2)(c) and s.11(3A) of the Statute of Limitations, which was not done.

Justice Quinn stated that the prejudice the plaintiff would suffer if the time were not extended would be significantly outweighed by the prejudice suffered by the defendants if it was extended. The Court noted general prejudice to the defendants caused by the delay. It was particularly swayed by the second-named defendant’s claim that he had no recollection of the alleged telephone call in August 2021.  The Court also noted that in terms of the overall interests of justice in the case, the plaintiff had not identified any damage to her reputation due to the alleged defamatory publications.  Furthermore, the plaintiff had a claim that was within time, the email of July 2023, and so she had the prospect of being vindicated in respect of that publication.  Accordingly, the Court refused the application to extend the limitation period to two years.

The decision is a reminder that the jurisdiction to extend the limitation period in defamation actions is confined to exceptional cases, with the plaintiff bearing the onus to justify the extension.

To discuss any of the matters raised in this article, please get in touch with Paul Convery, Adele Hall, Niamh McCabe or your usual William Fry contact.

Contributed by Nickolas Dergach