In 2025, the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 was reinstated after lapsing during the November 2024 General Election. The current Irish government has now reintroduced the Bill, labelling its proposed passing as a "matter of priority". The Bill is now at the committee stage, and undergoing a review by the Seanad – therefore this will be amended. The Bill, if passed, will constitute a radical change to defamation law in Ireland.
Defamation claims are a frequent feature of litigation in Ireland and are often included as an additional head of claim within negligence proceedings. Some 289 defamation claims were brought in 2024 and 360 in 2023[1]. These claims are sometimes loosely drafted, creating uncertainty around liability and increases the complexity of proceedings. There is concern for abuse by plaintiffs, for example, retail defamation claims are not uncommon and are often speculative. For insurers, this trend leads to increased claims and defence costs and inevitably increases premiums, particularly for those insureds in the media and retail/hospitality sectors.
Insurers and legal practitioners should be aware of the following proposed reforms:
Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) measures
SLAPP claims are abusive and unfounded lawsuits aimed at avoiding public scrutiny by intimidating defendants and imposing a financial burden on them. The Bill empowers defendants to strike out SLAPP claims and seek costs, which aligns with the EU's Anti-SLAPP Directive.
However the Bill has faced some criticism for giving full effect to the EU Directive because freedom of expression is often stifled through other types of SLAPP proceedings that use privacy, data protection, and copyright claims as vehicles. The EU Directive offers stronger safeguards, such as allowing third-party support for defendants (Article 9) and shifting the burden of proof to claimants in early dismissal motions (Article 12).
Abolition of juries in High Court defamation cases
Part 3 of the Bill proposes that defamation cases be heard by a judge alone, removing the right to a jury trial. The amendment could reshape defamation cases by curbing excessive awards, long trials, and unpredictability. However, critics like former High Court Judge Bernard Barton argue it’s “preposterous” as it would eliminate the right to a jury trial.
The serious harm threshold
Part 4 of the Bill proposes a higher threshold for corporate defamation, requiring proof of actual or likely serious financial loss and not just reputational harm. The higher threshold will likely reduce the number of defamation claims by corporates.
New defence to defamation
The Bill introduces a 'live broadcast defence' for statements published during the broadcast of a live programme, providing that the broadcaster can prove that it took reasonable and prudent precautions to prevent the publication by a relevant person of a defamatory statement during the programme.
Recent discourse
On 15 October 2025, the Seanad debated 'Amendment No. 5', which proposes a change of the definition of a defamatory statement to include a “seriousness” threshold for all defamation claims. Senator Michael McDowell supported the filtering of trivial or minor claims and criticised the Bill’s current inconsistency in applying this threshold to corporations but not individuals. He also rejected concerns that a threshold might infringe constitutional protections of an individual’s “good name".
Seanad members raised concerns over the proposed ‘public interest’ defence, which would create a simpler and arguably more favourable standard for media. Senator McDowell warned that would allow the publication of anything deemed in the public interest, if believed so in good faith, making this the sole criteria for damaging a person's reputation. Senator Craughwell highlighted concerns about press leaks and the difficulty of obtaining certain Court remedies.
The debate is due to continue as we await the final draft of the Bill.
Implications for insurers and claims
Once finalised, The Bill could significantly impact claims in Ireland through revamping defamation in this jurisdiction. By introducing anti-SLAPP measures, it will allow courts to strike out abusive or unfounded claims at an earlier stage which has the capacity to reduce defence costs and discourage frivolous litigation. Abolishing juries in High Court defamation cases should make awards more consistent and lower the risk of excessive damages, helping insurers to assess quantum of claims and set reserves. Finally, the new serious harm threshold for corporate plaintiffs, requiring proof of serious financial loss, could filter out weaker claims based solely on reputational damage, possibly reducing claim frequency.
While the Bill has attracted some criticism, when enacted it should go some way to achieving clearer liability standards and reducing speculative defamation actions, the Bill will likely benefit insurers and insureds in managing and predicting future claims.
For further advice on the Bill, or any of the key points noted in this article, get in touch with our team who will be happy to help.
1 Courts Service Annual Report For 2024
