Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024: Report and Final Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-01-21
============================================================

Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South

This is the first time I have done Report Stage amendments in Seanad Éireann and I had not been aware that I am only allowed speak once. I apologise to the Senators for the fact that some very interesting points have been raised in respect of the previous amendment and I did not get an opportunity to respond to them. Without wishing to give officials in my Department a minor heartache, I will briefly refer to one of the points that Senator Mullen referred to on the previous amendment. If there was a restaurant, called "Mullen's Restaurant", in Galway and Senator Mullen was the front-of-house owner, obviously he personally would also have an action in defamation if it was the case that the defamatory statement had been made about the restaurant suggesting that either the food was rotten or there were financial irregularities in respect of the staff there. Just because there is a corporate entity involved does not mean that a personal litigant, who is a director and associated with that company, does not have a cause of action in defamation.
I will now proceed to deal with Senator McDowell's amendment No. 5. This is a proposed amendment in respect of a very strong protection that will now be in the Defamation Bill, if enacted, for the benefit of retailers. I will read out to the House what the section of the principal Act will be at present and then look at it with Senator McDowell's amendment. It will contain, within subsection (1A) of section 18, the following:
... it shall be a defence to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement to which the action relates—
(a) consisted of—
(i) an inquiry as to whether the person whom the statement concerned had—
(I) paid for goods or services,
Senator McDowell's proposed amendment is that it should instead read:
... it shall be a defence to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement to which the action relates—
(a) consisted of—
(i) a statement or an inquiry as to whether the person whom the statement concerned had ...
My own view is that there is no necessity to shoehorn in at the beginning of subparagraph (i) that extra reference to "a statement".
Senator McDowell is adopting a very strict literal interpretation of the meaning of the word "inquiry". However, when a court comes to interpret this, it will know that there is a statement that was made by the shop owner. The statement is presented and pleaded by the shopper as being defamatory and they will set out what the defamatory statement is, but whether the statement is "Have you paid for that?" or if it is the statement, as Senator McDowell says, "That has not been paid for", they are both clearly inquiries of the person in respect of whether the goods or services have been paid for and they clearly cover the circumstances where a retailer is entitled to challenge an individual by saying to him or her, "That has not been paid for", "Has it been paid for?", "I do not think you have paid for that". All of those clearly come within the definition of an inquiry as to whether the person whom the statement concerned had paid for the goods. The publication by the retailer is a statement - of that there is no doubt - but it must consist of an inquiry as to whether the person whom the statement concerned had paid for the goods.
It is unnecessary to put in another reference to the word "statement" and the provision, as provided for at present, is broad enough to cover what Senator McDowell refers to as "a statement" as opposed to a question. It would be a bizarre interpretation if a court were to turn around and say that the retailer only had the protection if they asked a question and that their statement had to be interrogative, otherwise it was not protected. That is clearly not the intention of the Oireachtas in putting forward this legislation. What I say here is meaningless when it comes to judicial interpretation but the provision here is clearer the way it is as opposed to putting in what Senator McDowell suggests.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-01-21/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:31+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-01-21