I was out hunting with my local pack when I overheard a neighbouring farmer say in a loud voice that he hadn’t seen me out today and not to expect me because I was “too lily-livered for the big drains round here” and “Sure you know that lad’s afraid of falling and getting hurt. And sure why wouldn’t he be, a big sack of potatoes in the saddle he is!”

The listeners laughed loudly at these remarks.

How I came to hear this was on account of my being late to the meet. I had forgotten my back protector (it was very challenging country that day) and the field were lining the far side of the covert and didn’t see me approach.

Naturally, I was outraged and made my presence known. This big mouth small farmer, on his shabby piebald, went bright red and replied: “Oh, we were only just talking about you …”

I said I heard and wasn’t happy. He replied, “Sure if we can’t have a laugh what are we at?”

His companions nodded murmured agreement. I rode away. I was out till the last draw and crossed every obstacle.

I believe my reputation as an excellent horseman has been damaged. What’s more, some had said I was expected to be seen in pink very soon but I have noted a certain froideur towards me recently and there is no talk of elevation. It all stems back to what was said. Can I sue him for defaming me?

THIS incident was obviously very upsetting. I am generally of the view that it is improper to talk about others in company unless you can say something good and the shrewd among us appreciate the consequence of silence in reply to a query about another’s character.

The tort of defamation is defined in statute law and provides remedy for the publication of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more others.

Publication

Publication of a statement does not mean that the statement has to be committed to writing; it can be a statement made orally – though there is an obvious evidential difficulty with an alleged oral defamation as proving them invariably requires evidence from the listeners.

This was a statement uttered aloud to gathered listeners who reacted to the statement. There is no doubt in my mind but that a statement was published about you in the circumstances outlined.

Defamatory statement

A defamatory statement is a statement which tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society. The law has always sought to define what is ‘defamatory’ by reference to contemporaneous standards as social mores change. On considering the statements made about you, a reasonable person might understand their meaning to be that:

The statement arguably contained innuendo that you have a poor seat and/or were a bad rider and/or were not a capable of hunting this meet. Is this harmful in the eyes of a reasonable member of society? In my view it is.

Only a joke

The speaker on being challenged suggested it was a joke. This is no defence. Firstly this ‘explanation’ was made only after the statement was uttered and secondly those who heard the statement might not have thought it so. The content of the speech remains defamatory regardless of the intention of the speaker, though the circumstances might be a factor taken into account by a Court in considering the level of damages.

Defence of truth

Simply because a statement is published and defamatory does not always equate to a successful defamation action. The legislature provides for a number of defences which defeat a defamation claim including the ‘defence of truth’.

If a defendant can prove that the statement to which the action relates was “true in all material respects” he will not be held liable. This is a matter for yourself to consider.

However, I would make the observation that the essence of the statement was that you would not be out on that day on account of the ‘challenging country’ and that you were likely to fall. This was materially untrue because of course you were out and for the day. I note that you say you were late on account of having to return for a back protector. Though laudable, it is unusual apparel on an adult in the hunting field and your last minute decision to return for it may be considered by some as suggestive of an anxious mind. All this will prove fertile ground for cross examination in any hearing. However, in my view the essence of the statement that you were not out on account of cowardice was factually untrue and should be enough to defeat this defence.

Who decides?

Historically juries always decided disputed defamation actions on the basis that they represented the “reasonable members of society”. Nowadays you enjoy that privilege only if you believe that the harm to your representation entitles you to damages in excess of €75,000 which entitles you to issue proceedings in the High Court and have your case determined by a jury.

Otherwise, your defamation action will be decided by a judge sitting alone in your local Circuit Civil Court.

I note that you feel your chances at being made a Master are now slipping. While this may be true, it will be nearly impossible to prove. Many aspire to be a Master, many believe they will be, but few ever achieve the exalted responsibility.

An apology?

When a defamer admits wrongdoing, the first remedy is an apology and invariably an apology published in the same manner as the defamatory statement. This is why you will often see short articles prominently positioned in a newspaper correcting previously published pieces. I’m not convinced, however, that an apology in like manner here will be helpful.

The idea of the wrongdoer proclaiming to a gathered field, adjacent a covert, that you are in fact an excellent rider whose courage in crossing country is reminiscent of the brave cavalry who charged Russian guns in Balaclava might do more harm than good, will draw attention to the original defamation and will become hunt lore.

What next?

I think you should raise the matter privately with the speaker, explain your hurt at the remark and ask him to apologise privately. A sincere apology is a powerful salve.

However, should you meet an intransigent wall, your case is stateable, but remember you have to prove it and I would procure statements from everybody who heard the defamatory remarks before issuing proceedings. I don’t think this is a High Court case.

Be aware that defamation actions need to be issued within one year of the statement being made (except in exceptional circumstances) so if you are litigating retain a solicitor, move quickly but be warned that a defamation action gone wrong is costly!

The above comments are made only by way of academic commentary to assist The Irish Field readers better understand the legal norms and rules applicable to common equine related dilemmas. These comments are not ‘legal advice’ as per section 2 of Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 nor is the author providing ‘legal services’ pursuant to the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. Always consult a solicitor.

Seán D. Rafter is a Kilkenny-based barrister. He practices in criminal and civil law with a special interest in equine and agri issues. He is an enthusiast of hunting, racing and a good book.

Have a legal query for Seán?

Email editorial@

theirishfield.ie and put ‘Legal’ in the subject heading.