Solicitor sues over rateyoursolicitor.com comments
A solicitor has brought a defamation action over comments posted about him on the website 'rateyoursolicitor.com'
Damien Tansey, a partner in the firm Callan Tansey Solicitors, has taken proceedings against Mr John Gill Drumline, Newmarket-on-Fergus, Co Clare and Ans Vogelaar, Bohea, Liscarney, Westport, Co Mayo, who he claims are the website's operators.
Mr Tansey is also suing Dotster Inc, a US based firm which it is claimed provides internet services to the first-named defendants, including hosting the website.
In an affidavit to the court Mr Tansey, a solicitor based in Sligo, said that since July 2007 the website, which is widely read among legal consumers, has published materials which are false and defamatory of him.
Mr Tansey said that the words published on the site wrongly mean he had committed criminal acts, engaged in dishonest appropriation of client's property, lied to clients, engaged in corrupt conduct, engaged in unprofessional conduct, and failed to act in accordance with the highest standards.
As a result of the publication his character, reputation and business have been "greatly injured" resulting in him suffering embarrassment loss and damage, he said.
Today when the matter was mentioned before the High Court, counsel for Mr Tansey Richard Humphreys SC said that it was his understanding that Mr Gill intends to defend the proceedings.
Counsel was granted an extension of time by Mr Justice Michael Peart to bring proceedings against the defendants in relation to the allegedly defamatory remarks which were posted in the period between January 2010 and July 2010.
Counsel said that action would have been brought sooner, but it took some time and the work of experts to establish the names and identities of all the appropriate parties to sue. Counsel said considerable steps, including obtaining several orders from the High Court, have been taken by the defendants to hide the identity of the persons responsible for the website.
Counsel said now that proceedings had formally been issued it would bring parties "to their senses" and "that a certain view would be taken".
Mr Gill who did not consent nor oppose the motion to extend time. In response to Mr Justice Peart, he told the court he had very little to say other than the only thing he was interested in is the truth. He also said that he since he had returned from Canada his livelihood had been ruined "by these people".
The matter was adjourned.
