Limerick environmentalist fails in defamation bid against communications adviser

A Limerick solicitor and environmental campaigner has failed in her High Court defamation action against a communications adviser who, the lawyer alleged, had posted damaging comments about her on Twitter.

Michelle Hayes, of Glentworth Street, Limerick, sued Emma Gilleece, with an address at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7, over the publication of what she alleged were defamatory words on the defendant’s Twitter account between 2020 and 2022.

At the High Court on Wednesday, a unanimous jury decision rejected Hayes’s claims of online defamation. Gilleece, an architectural historian, had denied the claims.

Hayes, represented by Hayes Solicitors in Limerick, where she is a partner, said that in June 2020 Gilleece had, on Twitter, accused her of “bullying and threats”.

Hayes contended the words used in Gilleece’s tweets “in their natural and ordinary meaning and by means of innuendo” were understood to mean the plaintiff had engaged in “bullying in her professional affairs”.

Hayes submitted that she is entitled to her good name, which she values, and that as a solicitor she particularly relies upon her reputation.

Former chairperson of the Limerick branch of An Taisce - the national trust for Ireland - Hayes alleged that Gilleece tweeted in October 2020 that a group called Environmental Trust Ireland - of which Hayes is a founding member - “unfairly” “bullied” its way to get a place on the Limerick Public Participation Network.

That network endeavours to enable the community to be represented in the decision-making processes on Limerick City and County Council committees.

Regarding a 2023 tweet by Gilleece, Hayes alleged that a reference to a solicitor taking an action against the defendant referred to her.

Hayes submitted that the tweet referred to her abusing her “skills as a solicitor” by taking court proceedings.

Hayes had initiated two defamation proceedings against Gilleece − in 2021 and 2023 − claiming that she had no other option but to do so. Hayes sought damages and her costs for bringing the actions.

In his charge, Judge Oisín Quinn had asked the jury to consider whether posts by Gilleece carried the meaning that Hayes had engaged in “bullying and threats in the conduct of her business and professional affairs”.

The judge, on Wednesday reading out the verdict of the jury – after its members had deliberated for two and a half hours – said there was a unanimous answer of “no” to this question.

The jury was also asked by the judge whether Hayes had been individually identified, as alleged, in the tweets by Gilleece referred to.

The jury, said the judge, unanimously found that Hayes had not been identified, as claimed.

Regarding the 2023 action taken by Hayes over further tweets, the judge told the jury that a post by Gilleece in August 2022 should be considered in terms of “meaning”.

The jury was asked to consider whether Gilleece meant in that tweet that Hayes “wrongfully used litigation to cause the defendant to be in fear of speaking and to prevent her speaking”.

The judge said the jury had also unanimously responded “no” to the question of the plaintiff’s claim she was being accused of wrongful litigation.

During the case, Mark Harty, for Gilleece, had said the legal actions taken by Hayes were taken to “destroy”, “torment” and “gag” his client.

“Hell hath no fury like an environmentalist scorned,” he said.