John McGuirk criticised by judge after adjournment of libel action against Paddy Cosgrave

High Court Reporter

A High Court judge has sharply criticised conservative commentator John McGuirk after his lawyers sought an 11th-hour adjournment of his defamation action against Web Summit founder Paddy Cosgrave.

Judge Tony O’Connor, who described the situation as a “travesty”, agreed to adjourn the trial of the action on Tuesday, but ordered that McGuirk pay certain legal costs incurred in the action before a new hearing date is fixed in the case.

The trial of McGuirk’s case, in which he alleges he was defamed by posts made by Cosgrave on X – then Twitter – in 2021, was due to begin on Tuesday before a judge and a jury.

O’Connor said McGuirk could not “hide behind” comments made by his senior counsel, who told the judge that two junior lawyers representing McGuirk had last week agreed to the trial going ahead on Tuesday, in circumstances where this consent should not have been given.

The judge said McGuirk was responsible for the situation, and said he would not tolerate the integrity of the junior lawyers “being impugned in this court”.

The judge also noted how about 100 potential jurors, summonsed by the court in advance of a jury empanelling in the case, had been “inconvenienced tremendously” by the circumstances.

McGuirk was not present in court. Cosgrave was present.

At Tuesday’s hearing, McGuirk’s senior counsel Maura McNally, instructed by Robinson solicitors, told the judge that a junior solicitor and junior barrister last week appeared before the court and agreed to the case proceeding to trial that day.

McNally said this consent should not have been given, as the McGuirk side was then still awaiting a report from a San Francisco-based expert. McNally said her instructing firm’s principal solicitor had not been notified that consent was given for the hearing date.

McNally said she had not met her client in months, and had not reviewed papers in the case since January.

Counsel said she was seeking the adjournment as she was not in a position to proceed with the trial. McNally likened the trial proceeding to “being asked to go into a boxing ring with both hands tied behind my back”.

Barrister Tom Hogan, appearing for Cosgrave with Jennifer Goode and instructed by Flynn O’Driscoll LLP, opposed the application for adjournment, submitting that he couldn’t overstate “how extraordinary this state of affairs is”.

He said Cosgrave was in court and prepared for the trial.

Hogan noted that documents were lodged with the court by the McGuirk side on Friday, indicating that “somebody thought the case was going on”.

Responding to the judge’s invitation for counsel’s views on the making of a legal costs order against McGuirk, McNally said such an order should not be so onerous to preclude McGuirk from pursuing his case.

McNally said she was unaware of McGuirk’s financial position.

Acceding to the adjournment application, the judge ordered that McGuirk pay legal costs incurred by the parties in the wasting of Tuesday’s hearing date and other costs incurred in a pretrial non-party discovery motion before a new hearing date is fixed in the case.

“[McGuirk] is entitled to have his case tried, but he’s really stretching the limits of the court’s tolerance,” he said.

The judge said he would deal with an application by the Cosgrave side for costs on an enhanced “solicitor and client” basis at a later date.

The judge asked McNally to convey to McGuirk and her instructing solicitor his criticism of them in relation to the way which the junior barrister and solicitor were treated.

The judge said he would not tolerate their integrity “being impugned in this court”.