A Co Louth man, who claims to be a business associate of former Taoiseach Mr Albert Reynolds, has been given permission by the High Court to pursue a claim for defamation against Dow Jones & Company of the US.
The claim by Mr John O'Carroll is also against the business and investment journal Barrons, which is published by Dow Jones, and against an American journalist, Mr William Alpert.
Mr Justice Murphy said he would limit the claim being made by Mr O'Carroll, of Crowe Street, Dundalk, to damage caused to Mr O'Carroll's good name and reputation in Ireland.
Mr O'Carroll has alleged that Mr Alpert, a senior editor with Barrons, wrote to Mr Reynolds last January concerning an article which Barrons was about to publish. He said the letter contained inaccuracies about him.
In particular, he said, he was horrified at a suggestion that he "moved money at the direction of the jailed Cali Cartel money launderer Stephen Saccoccia". Cali Cartel was a group of Colombian drug lords and this claim was false and scandalous, he said.
Mr O'Carroll said that Stephen Saccoccia was convicted and sentenced to 660 years in the US in 1993 for racketeering, money laundering and related charges arising from his leadership of an organisation that laundered well over $100 million in drug money.
Lawyers for the three defendants claimed the letter, the subject of the alleged libel, was not published in Ireland. The letter was faxed by Mr Alpert to a law firm in Virginia which was counsel to a US company, Life Energy Technology Holdings (LETH), a publicly traded company with a New York address. The letter was addressed formally to Mr Reynolds in his capacity as chairman of LETH. Mr O'Carroll got a High Court order on February 20th last to notify the defendants that he would be applying for an interlocutory injunction to restrain them publishing material of a defamatory nature about him.
The defendants claimed no article had been published at the time Mr O'Carroll went to the Irish court. However, since then Barrons had published an article in magazine and Internet forms, the court heard.
The defendants held that the only claim Mr O'Carroll could make was over the letter which had been marked confidential and which had been sent to Mr Reynolds. Mr O'Carroll, they argued, could not have made a claim over material which had not been published at the time.
Mr Colm Smyth SC, for Mr O'Connor, said his client was a man of substantial wealth and reputation who had had very serious allegations levelled against him, that of dealing with drug lords, Mafia, and gangsters.
Counsel said Mr O'Carroll had been residing in this country for 20 years, lived in Castlebellingham, Co Louth, and was seeking to vindicate his good name and reputation in this country. He had not sought to stop the defendants publishing material in the US and was not seeking to prevent them publishing material worldwide.
Counsel said the Irish courts were the forum for Mr O'Carroll's action. The questions submitted in the letter to Mr Reynolds were cleverly phrased in that they asked questions by making allegations against Mr O'Carroll.
Mr Justice Murphy asked if it was being suggested by Mr O'Carroll that a letter going to one person would be defamation? Mr Smyth said that was the position because it was being published to a third party and contained most serious allegations being made to the chief executive of an American company quoted on Nasdaq.
Mr Justice Murphy giving his decision said the question was whether Mr O'Carroll could continue his action based on the permission granted by the High Court on February 20th last. It could not take into account anticipated publication which occurred after February 20th. It seemed clear that Mr Reynolds had received the January letter and to that extent it was clear that publication was in this country.