Search the record

civil and commercial cases which have a cross-border dimension. Those protections include the early dismissal of proceedings which are clearly or manifestly unfounded and the ability for targets of SLAPPs to seek more generous costs and damages as well as security for those costs and damages … allows a defendant to seek early dismissal of proceedings relating to their engagement in public participation on the basis that those proceedings are manifestly unfounded. Where an application for early dismissal is made, the plaintiff is obliged to substantiate their claim so that the court can determine whether

April 2024, the EU adopted its anti-SLAPP directive, which requires member states to provide minimum procedural safeguards for people targeted by manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings arising from their participation in matters of public interest. This Bill gives further effect to that directive in Irish … Bill, which I think are worth explaining. A defendant who believes that a claim brought against them because of their public participation is manifestly unfounded will be able to apply to have that claim struck out. Importantly, the legislation states that a court should deal with such

might respond formally to Deputy Gannon's amendments. I understand the purpose of amendment No. 3 would be to delete the reference to "manifestly unfounded" contained in section 34E of the proposed Part 4A. Section 34E transposes Article 11 of the directive under which a court may strike … been initiated against a person on account of their engagement in public participation without proceeding to a full hearing if satisfied they are manifestly unfounded. I understand the Deputy's desire to provide protection for those targeted by abusive proceedings against public participation. However, this aim must also

chilling effect on their public participation. Deputies Gannon, Kelly, Tóibín and Gogarty raised the issue regarding why a case has to be manifestly unfounded to be dismissed early and questioned whether that threshold is too high. There have been some suggestions that the requirement that the claim … manifestly unfounded to be dismissed at an early stage is too onerous. I understand the desire to provide protection for those targeted by abusive proceedings against public participation. However, the striking-out of proceedings represents a limitation on the right of access to the courts, and a balancing

which mean we will table a number of short amendments on the next Stage. The need for defendants to demonstrate a case is "manifestly unfounded" is an unduly high threshold that would preclude many SLAPPs from being subject to an early dismissal mechanism. We recognise the threshold … directive with respect to its inclusion of domestic cases, there is no reason this flawed threshold should be enacted. The "manifestly unfounded" test is far too high. The legislation should instead allow for abusive lawsuits to be subject to the dismissal mechanism in order to ensure the right

where proceedings are ultimately found to have been abusive. Section 8 also allows somebody to seek the early dismissal of a claim as manifestly unfounded and requires the person bringing the case to substantiate the claim. These are meaningful protections, but there are areas where we can make … when we considered the anti-SLAPP provisions in the defamation legislation last year. The threshold for early dismissal remains that a claim is manifestly unfounded. I am not convinced that fully captures what makes SLAPPs so insidious. The point is not necessarily that every SLAPP is completely without

satisfied that they can justifiably argue that SLAPP provisions may apply; allowing for defendants to seek early dismissal should a case be manifestly unfounded; and providing for allowance in relation to damages for abusive proceedings. In particular, we welcome the provision whereby Irish courts will not recognise

plaintiff to lodge security for costs and damages. Under section 8 also, a defendant can seek early dismissal of proceedings that are manifestly unfounded and the plaintiff must then substantiate the claim. Under sections 9 to 11, inclusive, a court can declare proceedings abusive, award more generous costs

reasonable cause of action is an abuse of the court process or is bound to fail. The Bill's definition of a manifestly unfounded claim largely lists those same existing grounds. The defendant's application must be made in accordance with law, which means under the existing rules

abusive in nature and allow courts to deal with them in an efficient manner. This legislation introduces mechanisms for the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded proceedings and provides protections for people engaged in public participation. It also allows courts to make appropriate cost orders and other remedies where

defendant wants to get a case thrown out early, as Deputy Tóibín mentioned, he or she has to prove that a claim is manifestly unfounded. That is a very high legal hurdle because a well-funded corporate legal team can tie a case up for a long time