You’ll recall how it emerged yesterday that Denis O’Brien was seeking a High Court injunction against RTÉ to prevent a report being broadcast today.
The matter has been adjourned until Tuesday, May 12.
The Irish Independent reports:
“Businessman Denis O’Brien’s injunction application against RTE over a proposed broadcast report in relation to his private banking affairs has been adjourned on consent between the parties in the High Court. The court heard RTE has in the meantime undertaken not to broadcast certain matters in the report which was due to go out today (Friday May 1). Mr O’Brien says there is no public interest in details in relation to his confidential private banking arrangements with Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC).”
“Michael Collins SC, for IBRC, said his client had a separate but related case against RTE and he sought permission for that to be before the court on May 12 along with the O’Brien proceedings.”
Businessman Denis O’Brien injunction application against RTE adjourned (Irish Independent)
O’Brien’s injunction application adjourned until 12 May (RTE)
Yesterday: Injunct In The Trunk
Timeline To A Killing
Broadsheet: “Legal Coffee Drinker, what’s it all about?”
Legal Coffee Drinker:“RTÉ agreed the adjournment [until May 12].”
Broadsheet: “But the judge didn’t make any ruling at all.”
LCD: “He didn’t have to.”
Broadsheet:“They caved in?”
LCD: “As per.”
Broadsheet:”Thanks Legal Coffee Drinker.”
LCD: “Don’t mention it.”
Sam Boal/Photocall Ireland
Im shocked! If I understand this correctly, RTE was going to report news?
They were never going to report the news,which is why they contacted O’briens people warning them that they would be running this report,knowing full well he’d go legal and prevent the Broadcast…
Perhaps. Or maybe RTE got in touch with [REDACTED]’s people to find what comment, if any, they had to make, or if they wanted to put their side of the story out there…at which point the lawyers sprung into action.
You could, of course, be bang on the money though.
Thank you BS and LCD for your clarification as always.
You two should get it together and bring BS commenters to the wedding.
So [redacted] , through his lawyers seems to be saying that what RTE are trying to report is not false or lies just that his dealings with the state owned bank is not in the public interest.
I’d be fairly sure that [redacted] ‘s dealings with the state owned bank are very much in the public interest.
What are the chances a TD could access the report and use Dail privilege to put it on the record??
Only if you let it scare you. He’s only a man, subject to the same laws everyone else. And you have the same rights as he does.
“subject to the same laws everyone else”
He’s only subject to them if they are applied to him…..
Is this the reason why Pat Rabbite attacked RTE in the Dail last month? A shot across the bows, perhaps.
This country and its businessmen.
hmmm.. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t adjourned on consent between the parties, means RTE agreed the adjournment. They haven’t necessarily ‘caved in’.
In terms of ‘The letter says the report will state certain matters and asks certain questions but at no point is it suggested there is any wrongdoing on anybody’s part which would be relevant to the public interest, counsel said’ from the independent, regardless of a definitive finding of wrongdoing, surely we are allowed know the facts, before coming to that judgement. If there’s absolutely no ‘wrongdoing’, what’s the problem?
Wrongdoing me hairy hoop.. Considering, it’s become known that Baldy had concerns that he hid deep inside his badly head all to himself, I think we need the facts.
Actually, nevermind, I’m talking out of my hoop, it means adjourned on consent between the two.. but RTE haven’t necessarily caved in… Yet.
Me thinks legal coffee drinker, is jumping the gun here.