High Court defamation suit

[John Redmond]

Sunday Times July 24, 2016

TEXT START
In an unusual move, a former chairman of the Irish Chess Union (ICU) has filed a High Court defamation suit against the organisation and two of its members.
TEXT END

Thanks for the full posting.
I suppose one worry would be that this suit could involve a big financial hit for the ICU. If the Union lost the case I imagine it could face damages that it would find difficult to repay. And just the costs of fighting the case might be hard to bear ... This is to say nothing of the rights and wrongs of the matter - I find the initial affair quite hard to follow.

[Colm Daly]

Has nobody ever heard of the idea that you shouldn't believe what you read in the papers?

This entire story is UNTRUE and wait till next week to see a full apology to both John McMorrow and Andrew Kildea from the Sunday Times. Pete had a stroke not all that long ago and I fear it has badly affected his judgement. Pete Morris is in big trouble now.

There is NO "High Court defamation suit"

But hey, there might be one now soon enough.

[Roger Lancaster]

If what Colm says is true, I'm mighty surprised the Sunday Times didn't check its facts before publishing.

[Stephen Brady]

Has nobody ever heard of the idea that you shouldn't believe what you read in the papers?

This entire story is UNTRUE and wait till next week to see a full apology to both John McMorrow and Andrew Kildea from the Sunday Times. Pete had a stroke not all that long ago and I fear it has badly affected his judgement. Pete Morris is in big trouble now.

There is NO "High Court defamation suit"

But hey, there might be one now soon enough.

The Irish High Court listings are searchable online here http://highcourtsearch.courts.ie/hcslive/cslogin, which verifies that there is a case listed with Pete Morriss as the plaintiff, with the ICU, Andrew Kildea and John McMorrow as the defendants. Of course, it may never actually be heard in court, with most likely outcome being some form of settlement either way before then. However, very clearly, the substance of the Sunday Times article is in fact true.

[NickFaulks]

However, very clearly, the substance of the Sunday Times article is in fact true.

But that would mean that what Colm says is untrue. I'm shocked.

[Tim Harding]

However, very clearly, the substance of the Sunday Times article is in fact true.

But that would mean that what Colm says is untrue. I'm shocked.

Stephen is right; I have found the entry myself. A couple of days ago I didn't find it; maybe it wasn't live yet or maybe I had searched for "Peter" rather than "Pete" Morriss but it is definitely there now: MORRISS -V- IRISH CHESS UNION & ORS 2016/5488 P

There was a thread about this on the Irish boards.ie but the moderators have removed it as sub judice.

[Carl Hibbard]

Perhaps best if we don't go too far with this one either.

[Tim Harding]

Perhaps best if we don't go too far with this one either.

I agree. Please close it.

[Colm Daly]

In the single post I made about this topic I had wrote:

“Has nobody ever heard of the idea that you shouldn't believe what you read in the papers?”

Leaving out the word “always” which should have been before the word “believe”.

Nevertheless this minor oversight aside I can't deny that I made a mistake of assuming that because I adopted the approach that it is best to get information directly from the horses mouth so to speak and I was told that the first either Andrew Kildea or John McMorrow had known of any court action or case, was when they heard about the Sunday Times piece. Plus that I understood that they intended to take action of their own in response to the Sunday Times article.

I perhaps naively assumed that they would need to have been first notified of any case against them, or any pending case, before it would, or could, be published in a newspaper. Naturally I then understood that the entire story would be rendered untrue and that indeed a retraction and public apology would soon follow once the mistake by the Sunday Times had been pointed out by one or both of the named people. It seems I just got this wrong and should have been more circumspect alright. Nevertheless I have little doubt that this case will go nowhere and is a baseless and hopeless venture by Pete.

I would contend that Pete therefore is still in big trouble for pursuing the path he seems to have taken and not only does he not have a leg to stand on in any defamation case against Andrew Kildea or John McMorrow but he has now opened up a can of worms that will come back to bite him big time. On that score I am indeed only offering a personal opinion and we will doubtless see soon enough how wrong or right I am.

There is a world of a difference between getting it wrong (for sound reasons) and just not having a clue. I still was rash and jumped to some wrong conclusions alright. I still have not found the case on the website but in any event I think it has only been lodged and I am guessing that the people named will still have to be served notice before anything further happens.

[Colm Daly]

I'm mighty surprised the Sunday Times didn't check its facts before publishing.

That is exactly what would have been my first thought and instinct too, but I also know that so often the newspapers get it wrong and because I got some information directly from the horses mouth so to speak I was complacent and as I indicate below jumped in too quick, albeit for very sound and logical reasons (Incorrect nevertheless)

A serving of humility every now and then is no harm and does us the world of good. Thanks to Stephen for setting me straight. I stand corrected.

[Roger Lancaster]

Gracious of Colm to acknowledge his error and I agree with others that further public discussion of this topic is not useful.

[Carl Hibbard]

I have locked this one now.