Defending a defamation claim in Ireland begins, for most people, with a letter: a solicitor’s letter saying that something you posted, reviewed, said or wrote is defamatory, and demanding removal, an apology and sometimes money. This page is written for the person holding that letter. The Defamation Act 2009 as amended by the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 gives a defendant more ground than the letter will admit, but the first reply decides how much of it stays open. We act for people who have been defamed and for people who have been accused of it, never for both sides of the same dispute, and the analysis is the same from either chair. It starts with what you actually published, and what you can prove.
Defending a Defamation Claim Ireland: The First Reply
Three things first. Do not reply in anger, and do not post about the letter, because anything you write now is a further publication and will be quoted back. Do not delete the content before taking your own copy with the URL and date visible; removal may well be the right move, but the evidence of what was actually said is yours as much as theirs. And read the letter against the Act. Does it quote the words or paraphrase them? Does it say when and where they were first published? Does it explain how the statement identifies the complainant? Is the complainant an individual or a company? Those questions are the skeleton of the defence, and a reply that answers them calmly, within the deadline the letter sets, through a solicitor, preserves every option, including the cheap ones. What to do in the first week is set out in received a defamation solicitor’s letter: what now.
What the Claimant Has to Prove
Section 6 puts the burden of the elements on the claimant: a statement that tends to injure their reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, published to at least one person other than the claimant, that identifies them. A message that reached nobody else is not published. A statement about a group, or one that needed inside knowledge to connect to the complainant, may not identify them. And since 1 March 2026 a claimant that is a body corporate must also meet section 12: the statement is not defamatory unless it has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to its reputation, meaning serious financial loss for a company trading for profit. A company that cannot point to lost trade may have no claim at all, whatever its owner feels. Then the date: section 38 gives one year from first publication, extendable to two at most where the interests of justice require it, applied strictly, and section 11 means the clock ran from the first publication, not from when the complainant noticed. The Time Limit Calculator works the dates through from either side.
Truth and Honest Opinion
Truth under section 16 is a complete defence, and it is yours to prove. That means evidence: the invoice, the message thread, the photograph, the witness. A statement you believe to be true but cannot prove is, in court, a statement that is not true. Honest opinion under section 20 protects something different: a statement recognisable as opinion, honestly held, based on facts that were stated or indicated and that are true or privileged. “The worst service I have had” is opinion; “they overcharged me by a hundred euro” is a statement of fact that section 16 has to carry. Most reviews and posts mix the two, and the defence is built by separating them line by line. The whole set, with the facts each one needs, is in our guide to defences to defamation.
Privilege, Public Interest and the Other Defences
- Absolute privilege (section 17): for statements made in the settings the Act lists, including court proceedings;
- Qualified privilege (section 18): where you had a duty or interest in making the statement and the recipient had a corresponding one, as with a reference, a grievance or a report to the right person, lost where the publication was excessive or made with malice (section 19);
- Retail inquiry privilege (section 18(1A), new): a retailer’s inquiry whether goods or services were paid for, where there was a duty or interest, the publication was not excessive and the inquiry was in good faith;
- Fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest (section 26 as substituted): fair, in the public interest, reasonably believed to be so, published in good faith;
- Consent (section 25), innocent publication (section 27) and live broadcast (section 27A, new).
Each defence is a set of facts, and the consultation tests which set you actually have. The shop that asked a quiet question at the till has section 18(1A); the shop that repeated it to the queue does not.
Offer of Amends and Apology
Where the statement cannot be defended, the Act gives two exits that are cheaper than fighting. An apology under section 24 is not an admission of liability and may be relied on in mitigation of damages, so a prompt, well-worded apology costs nothing in the liability sense and often ends the matter. An offer of amends under sections 22 and 23 is the formal version: an offer to publish a correction and apology, which since 1 March 2026 must have the same or similar prominence as the original, and to pay compensation and costs as agreed or as determined by the court. It must be made before the defence is delivered. If it is not accepted, it is a defence, lost only where you knew or were reckless as to whether the statement was false and defamatory, and your conduct after the offer is relevant to costs. The mechanics, and when to use it, are in offer of amends after the 2026 Act. The wording of either should be settled with a solicitor, because a badly drafted apology can concede more than the claim could have proved.
When to Settle, and the Costs Risk
If proceedings issue, they will usually be in the Circuit Court, whose jurisdiction in defamation is €75,000 and which can grant a declaratory order under section 28 that the statement was false and defamatory, a correction order under section 30 and a prohibition order under section 33, or in the High Court, where actions commenced on or after 1 March 2026 are decided by a judge alone. Check that a section 34K statutory declaration accompanied the originating document; the claimant’s solicitor must have informed them of the Press Council and right of reply options before issuing. Then the arithmetic. Costs in court generally follow the result: if the claim fails the claimant can be ordered to pay your costs, and if it succeeds you can be ordered to pay theirs as well as damages. Most Circuit Court defamation claims settle before hearing, and a defendant with a weak truth defence and a strong apology settles early and cheaply. A defendant with the evidence settles later, or not at all. Mediation sits between the two, and as a Law Society accredited mediator Richard O’Shea can say what it does and does not achieve. How the fee conversation works is on our fees page.
What a First Consultation Establishes
Whether the words are defamatory and of the complainant at all; whether, if the complainant is a company, section 12 can be met; whether the claim is in time; which of truth, honest opinion, privilege or public interest you can actually prove, and with what; whether to remove the content now, and how, without conceding anything; whether an apology under section 24 or an offer of amends under section 22 closes the matter; what the reply should say; and what each route costs. Bring the letter, your own copy of what you published with the URL and date, everything that supports the facts you stated, and any earlier contact with the complainant. Many people leave knowing the claim is weaker than the letter suggested; some leave knowing that an apology this week is cheaper than anything that follows, which is also worth knowing.
Received a Defamation Letter? Do Not Reply Yet
Bring the letter and your own copy of what you published. One consultation establishes what the claimant has to prove, which defence you have, and whether an apology or an offer of amends ends it.
Call 01 5827148