Small Leitrim businesses should not face legal action for 'refusing to accept counterfeit currency or asking for ID'

A Sligo/Leitrim Senator has commented on a new defamation bill which would "repeal the common law rule that, where it is proven that a defamatory statement has been published, then general damage is automatically presumed". 

The Bill, which is currently before Dáil Éireann, proposes a number of significant reforms, including the abolition of juries in High Court defamation claims.

Senator Nessa Cosgrove said the "right to defend one's good name in front of a jury is of course fundamental, but we must accept that something has gone wrong when retailers are facing legal actions for what are manifestly non-defamatory statements. Whether it is asking for a receipt, refusing to accept counterfeit currency or asking for ID when selling alcohol, none of these situations should see businesses faced with defamation cases. We know it is happening because I have been contacted by small to medium enterprises all over the country about this. They are bearing the brunt of this flawed system."

READ MORE: Flooding prompts demand for river maintenance works throughout Leitrim

She continued: "This amendment proposes to pose the question as to why defamation is alone among several wrongs in having a presumption of general damage. Does this not then encourage litigation? Our current system presumes general damages when defamation has been shown to take place. General damage is to be contrasted with special damage, which means specific financial loss or actual harm, which would need to be proven on evidence. In contrast, general damage refers to non-economic reputational damage, for example the impact on mental health. The current law presumes that general damage flows from every defamatory statement, without the need for proof. This means that it is not necessary for people taking frivolous, exaggerated or unfounded cases as a stance that can prove any loss or harm."

She concluded: "By changing the presumptions, we can help to ensure that our small to medium enterprises are protected from the sort of retail defamation that has become all too common in recent years. Abolishing the presumption of general damage would not deter litigants in genuine cases, where it would be straightforward to produce witnesses as to the effect of the defamatory publication on their view of the plaintiff. Therefore, would this amendment, this simple fix, not tackle the serious challenge facing our small businesses, particularly in the retail sector, without in any way undermining the existing protections individuals enjoy under defamation law?"