The Press Council Step Before You Sue

Since 1 March 2026 no defamation action in Ireland can issue without the solicitor first telling the client about a Press Council complaint and the broadcast right of reply, and then declaring formally that this was done. That is the effect of section 34K of the Defamation Act 2009, inserted by the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 as part of a new Part 4B. For a person defamed by a newspaper or a broadcaster the step is often worth taking in its own right: it is free, it produces a published decision, and it pauses the one-year clock. For a person defamed on social media it is a formality with nowhere to go. This guide explains what the section requires, how the Press Council complaint works, what the right of reply is, what the declaration says, and when the step is a tactic rather than a detour.

1. What Section 34K Requires

Part 4B of the Act creates a duty on the solicitor, not on the client. Before issuing proceedings, the solicitor must inform the client of the specified alternative dispute resolution options, and must file a statutory declaration with the originating document confirming that this was done. The specified options are two: a complaint to the Press Council of Ireland, and the right of reply under the Broadcasting Act. The section does not require the client to use either. It requires the conversation to happen and to be recorded, so that nobody arrives in court against a newspaper without having been told there was a free route to a published finding. The policy is the same as the policy behind the rest of the 2026 Act: fewer cases and earlier corrections. The overall shape of the amending Act is set out in the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026, explained.

2. The Press Council Complaint: Free, Code-Based, Published

The Press Council of Ireland and the Office of the Press Ombudsman handle complaints against member publications under the Code of Practice. Three features of the process matter for someone deciding whether to use it. It is free to make a complaint, so the only cost is time. It is decided against the Code of Practice rather than against the Defamation Act, so the question is whether the publication breached the standards it signed up to, which overlaps with but is not the same as whether it defamed you under section 6. And the outcome is a published decision, not damages: if the complaint is upheld, the publication carries the finding, and that is the whole of the remedy. For a person whose objective is a public record that the article was wrong, that may be exactly the remedy they wanted. For a person who has lost business or employment because of the article, it is a step on the way rather than the destination.

3. The Right of Reply for Broadcasters

The second specified option applies where the publisher is a broadcaster. The right of reply under the Broadcasting Act gives a person whose reputation has been damaged by a broadcast a route to a reply carried by the broadcaster, and it is the broadcast equivalent of the Press Council complaint for the purposes of section 34K. The same two features follow: it is a route to a correction rather than to compensation, and while the procedure is running the limitation period under section 38 is suspended. A broadcast is a statement under the Act in the same way as a printed article, since the definition includes sounds and visual images in any medium, and the broadcaster has its own defence under the new section 27A where a contributor made the statement live and the broadcaster took reasonable care. The right of reply is the practical answer to that defence.

4. The Statutory Declaration

The declaration is the enforcement mechanism. When proceedings issue, the originating document is accompanied by a statutory declaration from the solicitor confirming that the client was informed of the specified ADR options before the claim was brought. It is filed in every defamation action, whether the defendant is a national newspaper, a broadcaster, a neighbour in a WhatsApp group or an anonymous account, and whether or not the client used either option. From the defendant’s side it is the first thing to check when a summons arrives, because a claim issued without it has a procedural defect at the outset. From the plaintiff’s side it means the ADR conversation is part of every file from the first consultation. A publisher or broadcaster that receives a Press Council complaint or a solicitor’s letter gets the same analysis from the other side; we never act for both sides of the same dispute.

5. The Suspended Clock

Section 38 gives one year from the date of first publication, extendable by the court to a maximum of two years only where the interests of justice require it, which the courts apply strictly. Part 4B adds a suspension: the limitation period does not run while a specified ADR procedure is running. That is a genuine pause, and it is the only one in the Act. A report to a platform under the Digital Services Act does not halt the clock. A solicitor’s letter does not halt it. An application for an identification order under section 45 does not halt it. A Press Council complaint or a broadcast right of reply does. The suspension covers the period the procedure is actually running, so the date the complaint was lodged and the date of the decision are both facts the file must hold. The limit itself is explained in the one-year defamation time limit, and the Time Limit Calculator gives the dates.

6. Using the Press Council Complaint as a Tactic

For a member publication the complaint is often worth making even where proceedings are the likely end point, for three reasons. First, it costs nothing and the clock is paused, so there is no limitation penalty for trying. Second, it forces the publication to engage with the substance of the article under the Code of Practice, and a publication that offers a correction or a clarification at that stage has given you, in print, the thing a correction order under section 30 would otherwise take a court to produce. Third, a published decision upholding the complaint is a public document, and a publication that then refuses to resolve the matter has that decision on the record when the solicitor’s letter arrives. None of that binds a court or replaces the elements of section 6, and the publication will still have its defences, in particular fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest under section 26 as substituted. But a plaintiff who arrives at the letter stage with a public finding in hand is negotiating from a different position.

7. When to Skip It: Non-Member Publishers

The Press Council handles complaints against member publications. A blog, a social media account, a review platform, a community group or a website that has not joined the scheme is outside its remit, and a complaint about such a publisher has nowhere to go. The section 34K duty is unchanged: the solicitor still informs the client of the options and still files the declaration. The practical advice is simply that neither option applies, and the sequence moves straight to the routes that do. For a post or a review that means capture, the platform report under the Digital Services Act, the solicitor’s letter seeking removal and an apology under section 24, and, if refused, the Circuit Court remedies: the declaratory order under section 28 that the statement was false and defamatory, the correction order under section 30, the prohibition order under section 33 and damages under section 31. The one thing not to do is spend weeks on a complaint that cannot be received, with no suspension of the clock to show for it.

8. What Is Not Yet in Force: Sections 34M and 34N

Part 4B was commenced on 1 March 2026 by S.I. 61/2026 with two exceptions. Section 34M, which would give the court a power to invite the parties to use ADR, and section 34N, which would attach costs consequences to a refusal, are not commenced. Until they are, the position is the one described above: the duty to inform, the declaration, and the suspension of the limitation period during a specified procedure, with no court-driven invitation and no statutory costs penalty for declining. Costs still generally follow the result, and conduct after an offer of amends under section 22 is already relevant to costs, so refusing a sensible resolution is not free of consequence. It is simply not yet the specific consequence the Act contemplates.

9. After the Step: Issuing Against a Publisher

If the complaint is not upheld, or is upheld and the publication still will not resolve the matter, the clock resumes and the ordinary sequence follows: the solicitor’s letter, the declaration under section 34K, and proceedings in the Circuit Court, whose jurisdiction in defamation is €75,000, or the High Court, which for actions commenced on or after 1 March 2026 sits without a jury. A claim against a newspaper or a broadcaster differs from a claim against an individual, because the publisher will have a legal team, an archive and the section 26 defence. The particular features of media claims, including pre-publication advice when a journalist asks for comment, are on our page on media defamation and the Press Council.