The High Court of Ireland has refused an application extend time to bring defamation proceedings against several parties, including the Health Service Executive, the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, and two medical professionals.
The applicant’s late husband had a long history of mental health difficulties, which were said to have worsened in the year prior to his death. He attended hospital in April and October 2021 and was later admitted to Naas Hospital under psychiatric care. Medical records indicated that he had identified his adult daughter as next of kin and that he was “currently going through a divorce.”
Following a five-month admission, he was discharged to the United Kingdom. He died there on 19 March 2022 from an apparent overdose of prescribed medication.
The applicant subsequently sought access to his medical records, but her request was refused on the basis that she was not recorded as next of kin. That refusal was upheld on appeal by both the Data Protection Commissioner and the Information Commissioner.
In 2024, the applicant issued wrongful death proceedings and also pursued a claim under the UK Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. In 2025, having obtained documents through discovery, she sought to bring defamation proceedings out of time. She alleged, among other matters, that she had been wrongly described as the deceased’s “ex-wife” and challenged communications suggesting she lacked authority to access his records.
Delivering judgment, Ms Justice Phelan refused to extend time.
The Court emphasised that under the Statute of Limitations Act 1957, defamation proceedings must generally be brought within one year of publication, with a possible extension to a maximum of two years. Crucially, there is no “discoverability” rule in defamation, meaning time runs from the date of publication rather than when the claimant becomes aware of the statement.
Relying on McKenna v. Kerry County Council, the Court confirmed that it had no jurisdiction to extend time beyond two years from the date of publication. Accordingly, any claims relating to statements made in 2022 were statute-barred.
The Court also rejected reliance on statutory provisions concerning fraud or concealment, finding no evidence that would justify disapplying the limitation period.
In respect of statements made within the two-year period, the Court considered whether the statutory test for extending time was met, including the interests of justice and the balance of prejudice.
Ms Justice Phelan found that the applicant’s prospects of success were weak, even aside from the limitation issue. She noted that the alleged defamatory communications could have been misunderstood or misrecorded, and that the medical professionals had legitimate concerns regarding the release of sensitive records.
The Court further questioned whether any real reputational damage had been suffered, particularly given that divorce proceedings had in fact been initiated and that concerns regarding access to records had been upheld by independent authorities.
Importantly, the Court held that defamation proceedings could not be used as a collateral challenge to decisions of the Data Protection Commissioner and the Information Commissioner, which had not been legally contested at the relevant time.
The Court also noted that discovery orders already made in the wrongful death proceedings provided a lawful basis for accessing relevant records, thereby mitigating any alleged reputational harm.
In a broader observation, Ms Justice Phelan remarked that the deceased’s deteriorating health prior to his death could have affected his personal relationships, and that any ambiguity regarding his wishes did not necessarily reflect negatively on any individual.
The Court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to extend time in respect of older publications and that, in any event, it would not be appropriate to exercise its discretion to extend time for more recent matters. The application was therefore refused.