Court refuses to strike out action against Bailey

The High Court has refused to strike out a legal action against English journalist Ian Bailey in which it is claimed he wrongfully caused the death of Frenchwoman Sophie Toscan du Plantier by assaulting and battering her in Co Cork eight years ago.

The civil proceedings have been brought by Ms du Plantier's parents and son.

Noting that particulars of the claim were delivered late and only after Mr Bailey's lawyers issued his motion, Mr Justice Hanna said he would grant costs of the motion to Mr Bailey (46) against the plaintiffs - Mr Georges Bouniol and his wife Marguerite, parents of Ms du Plantier, and Mr Pierre Louis Baudey, her son.

Earlier yesterday, Mr Ronan Munro, for Mr Bailey, Liscaha, Schull, Co Cork, said the motion arose from the plaintiffs' suing Mr Bailey for the wrongful death of Ms du Plantier near her holiday home in Schull.

Mr Ronan said the plenary summons issued on December 19th, 2002, seeking damages for fatal injuries and wrongful death, was not served until July 31st, 2003. A statement of claim was not delivered until September 2003.

Last August Mr Bailey's side sought particulars of the claim and asked in what manner it was alleged the killing took place. A reminder was sent in September. When no reply was again received, the motion seeking to dismiss the claim was issued.

Counsel said the failure to reply was peripheral to his essential claim of the difficulty for the defendant in defending the action given the delay in initiating the proceedings.

The court could presume Mr Bailey was prejudiced as a result of that delay through difficulties with recollection of witnesses and difficulty in identifying witnesses.

Mr Justice Hanna asked what prejudice was Mr Bailey suffering from, given that he had put matters before the public by taking an action (defamation proceedings against newspapers). He also noted there may be issues in the present case relating to the Statute of Limitations.

Mr Munro said Mr Bailey had taken the defamation proceedings to defend his good name.

Mr Jim O'Callaghan, for the plaintiffs, disputed that the case was statute barred. The correct motion to bring was a motion to compel replies to particulars.