Amazon loses bid to pause Paul Tweed's defamation case

Eimear Dodd

The Court of Appeal has refused to stay defamation proceedings brought by media lawyer Paul Tweed in relation to a book which was sold by Amazon and published by a Washington DC, USA, publisher.

Mr Tweed has sued Georgetown University Press, publishers of a book called "Subversion: The Strategic Weaponisation of Narratives" by Dr Andreas Kreig. His claim that he was seriously defamed by the publication has yet to go to trial.

It was published in Ireland in 2023 and was for sale on Amazon websites in the US and the UK. It is accepted a number of books were supplied by Amazon to customers in Ireland, but the total number of sales here was very small.

Mr Tweed has separately sued Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon UK Services Ltd.

Amazon brought a pre-trial application seeking to stay the proceedings against it until the case against Georgetown University Press is determined.

The High Court refused the application, and Amazon appealed. Mr Tweed opposed the appeal.

He also asserted that he should be awarded punitive and aggravated damages against Amazon because, he says, that unlike other vendors, they refused to cease sales of the book in issue notwithstanding several requests made to them to do so between June 2023 and November 2023.

He also contended Amazon had engaged in delaying tactics designed to frustrate him in bringing his case to trial.

No defence has yet been delivered by Amazon, but they have made it clear they dispute his allegations. They also contend there is no basis for the award of punitive or aggravated damages and that Mr Tweed himself has been guilty of delay.

Amazon contended justice required there should be a stay on the proceedings against them for a number of reasons.

These included that they are not the original publisher of the book and should not be treated in the same way as the original publisher in accordance with a distinction made in section 27 of the Defamation Act 2009.

Amazon also contended that the substantive defence in defamation actions of honest opinion and truth were matters in which the author and publisher are in a much better position to advance than they are.

Among his arguments in opposing the appeal, Mr Tweed criticised Amazon for their failure to deliver a defence and also rejected their suggestion that freedom of expression could have formed any part of their decision to refuse to cease or suspend distribution of the book. That was an argument which might avail the author but not Amazon, he said.

Upholding the High Court decision to refuse a stay, Mr Justice McDonald said that the court had delivered a "careful and measured judgment" in which the judge weighed a large number of factors.

Concerns expressed on behalf of Amazon raised the obvious question as to whether it would make sense that there should be a concurrent trial of both sets of proceedings, he said. That is ultimately a question for the High Court, but in the CoA's view, it was an issue to which serious consideration should be given.

Mr Justice McDonald did not believe that certain concerns of Amazon satisfy the "irremediable prejudice" test for granting a stay. That was a concern that arises in every defamation case, he said.

He was of the view that Amazon had failed to establish any sufficient basis to warrant interfering with the order of the High Court.
ends