Chapter 2 of 7 · The clock · 2 of 2
When the defamation clock starts in Ireland: online posts, repeats and the multiple publication rule
Checked 9 October 2026, Defamation Act 2009 as amended.
For online defamation in Ireland the one-year clock starts when the post was first capable of being viewed. How accrual works for speech, print, broadcast and web, plus repeats and the s.11 rule.
Written for both sides: the paragraphs say which apply to whom. This guide covers the Republic of Ireland.
The defamation time limit in Ireland is one year, extendable to two by court order and never beyond. That rule is simple to state. The harder question, and the one that decides many online cases, is when the year begins. This guide explains the date from which the clock runs for each kind of publication, how edits, re-posts and shares are treated, and the multiple publication rule in s.11 of the Defamation Act 2009. It ends with a worked example using dates, and with a section for the person accused.
The one-year rule itself, the two-year extension and its test, and the shorter windows for the Press Ombudsman and broadcasters are in the companion guide on the defamation time limit. This guide assumes you have read that and focuses on the start date.
The rule: the clock runs from accrual
Under s.11 of the Statute of Limitations 1957, as inserted by s.38 of the 2009 Act, the one-year period runs from the date on which the cause of action accrued. In defamation the cause of action accrues on publication, meaning the moment the statement reaches at least one person other than you. The date you found out about it, the date you first read it, and the date you realised it was damaging do not move the start.
The Act then adds a specific rule for online material: the cause of action accrues on the date the statement is first capable of being viewed. The word "capable" matters. The clock starts when the post went live and could have been read, not when it was first actually read or when it reached you.
Accrual for each kind of statement
Spoken. The clock runs from the day the words were spoken to someone other than you. If the same person says the same thing again at a later meeting, that is a further publication, and the s.11 rule discussed below applies. Evidence of the date rests on the people who were present, so note names and dates as soon as you can.
Print. The clock runs from the publication date of the newspaper, magazine, leaflet or letter. For a printed item that is also published online, the online copy has its own first-viewable date, and the s.11 rule treats both as publications of the same statement by the same publisher.
Broadcast. The clock runs from the date of the broadcast. A repeat broadcast by the same broadcaster is a further publication by the same publisher. A catch-up or on-demand version is online material with a first-viewable date. Remember the separate and much shorter window of 30 days for a written complaint to the broadcaster.
Online. The clock runs from the date the post, comment, review, video or page was first capable of being viewed. For a public post that is the moment it was published. For a post in a closed group, it is the moment it was visible to the group's members. For a message in a group chat, it is the moment it was delivered to the other members. The guide on WhatsApp groups explains why a group message is publication.
Platform timestamps are the primary evidence of the first-viewable date. Capture them with the content, in a form that shows the date and, where available, the time. The evidence kit sets out how.
The multiple publication rule (s.11)
Online material stays online. Without a specific rule, every fresh view of a post would be a fresh publication and the one-year limit would be meaningless. Section 11 of the 2009 Act supplies the rule.
A person has one cause of action in respect of multiple publications of the same statement to the public by the same publisher. The clock runs from the first of them. The person defamed may not bring more than one action over those publications without the court's leave.
Three consequences follow.
Continued availability does not restart the clock. A post that went live fourteen months ago is out of time against its author, without the court's leave for an extension, even though it is still there and still being read.
A straight re-post by the same person is covered by the same cause of action. If the author deletes and re-uploads the same words, or posts the same statement on a second platform, that is a further publication by the same publisher of the same statement. It does not give you a new year without the court's leave. It does, however, go to the extent of publication and to the author's conduct, both of which matter to damages.
A different publisher is a different cause of action. The rule is about the same publisher. Anyone else who repeats the statement publishes it afresh, and your claim against that person has its own clock running from their publication. This is the point that most often gives a person who has missed the deadline against the original author a live claim against someone who shared it later.
Edits and changed versions
The Act does not spell out when an edited post becomes a new statement rather than a further publication of the same one. A change of a typo is plainly the same statement. A version that adds a new allegation is plainly a new statement with its own date. Between those two points, whether a reworded version is "the same statement" is a question a solicitor would look at on the facts, and this site does not offer a rule where the Act does not.
What you can do is preserve both versions with their dates. Platforms often show an "edited" marker and sometimes an edit history. If the change matters to your claim, that history is the evidence.
A worked example with dates
The dates below are illustrative. Nobody is named and the post is described by its kind only.
| Event | Date | What it means for the clock |
|---|---|---|
| A post accusing a tradesperson of taking deposits and doing no work goes live in a public community group | 14 March 2026 | First capable of being viewed. The one-year period against the author runs to 14 March 2027. |
| The tradesperson learns of the post from a customer | 2 May 2026 | No effect on the clock. The start date is 14 March 2026. |
| The author re-posts the same words in a second group | 20 June 2026 | Further publication by the same publisher of the same statement. Covered by the same cause of action under s.11; no new period without the court's leave. Relevant to extent and conduct. |
| A member of the second group shares the post to their own page | 3 September 2026 | A separate publication by a different person. A separate cause of action against the sharer with its own period, running to 3 September 2027. |
| The original period expires | 14 March 2027 | Proceedings against the author can no longer be issued without a court order extending time. |
| Outer limit for an extension against the author | 14 March 2028 | The court has no power to extend beyond two years from accrual. |
| Period against the sharer expires | 3 September 2027 | Proceedings against the sharer can no longer be issued without an extension. |
Two points from the table. First, the tradesperson's seven-week delay in discovering the post cost seven weeks of the year, because the clock started on the first-viewable date. Second, there are two separate defendants with two separate deadlines, and a claim that is out of time against one may be in time against the other. The time-limit tool handles multiple publications, one date each.
Steps that do not move the start date
None of the following changes the accrual date or restarts the year:
- the date you first saw the post;
- a request to the author to take it down, and their refusal;
- a notice to the platform under Article 16 of the Digital Services Act, which the notice builder prepares;
- a Google delisting request;
- the post being shared again by the same author;
- a solicitor's letter.
A platform notice and a delisting request are worth sending early for their own sake, because they may remove or reduce the harm. They simply do not affect the limitation calculation. The guide on what to do today about a false post or comment puts the routes in order.
Anonymous authors and the clock
If you do not know who posted the statement, the clock still runs from the first-viewable date. Since 1 March 2026 the Circuit Court can order an online intermediary to disclose who posted a statement where it is in the interests of justice and the disclosure interest outweighs the interests against it, under s.22 of the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026. That application takes time and needs to be started well inside the year. The guide on anonymous accounts and identification orders explains the test, and the changes page tracks the 2026 Act.
If you are the one accused
From your side the start date is a point to check rather than to assume.
If you wrote the original post, your exposure runs from the date it was first capable of being viewed. If that is more than a year ago, proceedings cannot be issued against you without a court order, and after two years not at all. The fact that the post is still up does not restart the period, and a re-post of the same words by you is covered by the same cause of action under s.11. Do not, however, treat that as a reason to post it again: further publication goes to damages and to your conduct if a claim is brought within time.
If you edited the post, be aware that the other side may argue that a materially changed version was a new statement with a later date. Preserve the edit history.
If you shared or forwarded someone else's post, you are a separate publisher and your clock runs from your share, not from the original. The original being out of time does not help you. Your defences are your own: innocent publication under s.27 if you merely hosted or administered the page, qualified privilege if you passed the material to someone with a duty to receive it, honest opinion if you added only your own comment. The defences guide lists them with what each needs in evidence.
If you administer a page or group where the statement appeared, the first-viewable date is when it became visible to the group. Your position usually turns on what you did once you were told about it, and a prompt response to a complaint is the best evidence you can have.
Whatever your role, do not delete the content once a dispute has started. The other side will usually have captures already, and the timestamps are the evidence of the dates you will rely on.
Where this leaves you
The start date is the first-viewable date, not the date you found out. The same publisher's repeats do not restart the year, and a different person's repeat starts a new one. Work out the date of each publication by each person, and you have the deadlines. The time-limit tool takes those dates one at a time and shows the one-year deadline and two-year outer limit for each, so that both the person defamed and the person accused can see exactly where each publication stands.
Frequently asked questions
When does the time limit start for online defamation in Ireland?
On the date the statement was first capable of being viewed, under s.11 of the Statute of Limitations 1957 as inserted by the Defamation Act 2009. It is not the date you first saw it. The one-year period runs from that first-viewable date.
Does the clock restart every time someone views the post?
No. Under s.11 of the 2009 Act, one cause of action covers every publication of the same statement to the public by the same publisher. Continued availability and further views do not start a new period, and a further action against the same publisher needs the court's leave.
Does the clock restart if the post is shared by someone else?
A share, forward or repost by a different person is a separate publication by that person, with its own one-year clock running from their publication. Your claim against the original poster is unaffected and still runs from the original date.
What if the post was edited or re-posted by the same person?
The Act treats every publication of the same statement by the same publisher as one cause of action, so a straight re-post of the same words does not give you a new period without the court's leave. Whether a materially changed version is a new statement is a question for a solicitor on the facts; the Act does not spell out a test.
What is the multiple publication rule in Irish defamation law?
Section 11 of the Defamation Act 2009 provides that a person has one cause of action for multiple publications of the same statement to the public by the same publisher, and may not bring more than one action over them without the court's leave. It prevents a single statement generating a fresh claim every time it is viewed or reprinted by the same source.
What if I did not know about the post until months later?
The clock still runs from the first-viewable date. If more than a year has passed, you can ask the court to extend the period to a maximum of two years, and not knowing of the publication is a factor the court can weigh under the interests-of-justice test. After two years there is no claim.