THREE men who claim they were libelled by Carlton on Television and Ulster Television are entitled to take their actions in this State the High Court ruled yesterday. Carlton Television Ltd, London and Ulster Television Ltd, Belfast, had brought a preliminary motion that the courts in this State did not have jurisdiction to hear the action taken by Mr David Ewins, Mr Michael Collins and Mr Ciaran McBride.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Barr said the three men claimed damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages, for libel arising out of a television documentary entitled Confessions made and broadcast by Carlton, Ulster Television and others on April 18th 1995.
The subject matter of the television broadcast was a purported account by Mr Eamonn Collins of his activities and experiences as a member of the Provisional IRA.
The judge said the fundamental rule of the Brussels Convention was that a defendant shall be sued in the courts of his/her domicile. However, there were exceptions.
The problem raised on this motion was whether the three were entitled to maintain their actions against the television stations in this jurisdiction on the ground that the "harmful event" occurred in this State.
Carlton devised and published the programme. Confessions was supplied by Carlton to Ulster Television which transmitted it to viewers in Northern Ireland and this State.
The number of viewers in this jurisdiction who watched the programme was estimated by RTE to have been 111,000.
The natural and probable consequence of Carlton providing the programme to Ulster Television for redistribution was that it would reach a significant number of viewers in this jurisdiction and, accordingly, harm would be done in this State within the meaning of an article 5(3) of the Convention. It followed that the three men were entitled to maintain their actions against both defendants in this jurisdiction.
The defendants had not advanced credible evidence to suggest that in electing to sue them in this jurisdiction, the three men had been guilty of oppression.
The remaining issue was that of a possible world wide claim. It did not arise in the actions brought by Mr Collins and Mr McBride. They were claiming only compensation for injury done within this jurisdiction.
Whether Mr Ewins was claiming world wide damages was not clear, the judge said. He was not entitled to maintain a claim for damages on a world wide basis in she present action.