Facebook fails to get flag protester’s legal action struck out

FACEBOOK has failed in a bid to end a lawsuit brought by a loyalist flag protester whose alleged panic attack stopped him giving evidence in court.

The social media giant was seeking to strike out a breach of privacy action brought by the man over comments and photos posted on its pages.

Lawyers for the company ar- gued that he abused the judicial process in a case where he left the High Court in Belfast to go home on the day he was due to testify, pointing out that no medical evidence was produced to support his absence.

Dismissing the application, a judge ruled that his behaviour was not enough to forfeit a right to have his case adjudicated.

But Mr Justice Colton warned: “The plaintiff is in the last chance saloon.”

The man at the centre of the case, referred to only as J19, sued Facebook over information posted in September 2013. He claims to have featured in a photograph showing him standing beside a large Union Jack, and to have suffered harassment and threats.

J19 came under focus for his involvement in demonstrations after a decision to limit the flying of the Union flag at Belfast City Hall.

In December last year Face- book was ordered to pay £3,000 damages to another flag protester, J20, for similar alleged misuse of private information. An appeal is to be heard next month.

The trial of J19’s action was adjourned last March after his lawyers revealed he had suffered a panic attack, gone home and could not give evidence.

The court heard he has a history of alcohol dependency and suffers from hallucinations and depression. But after a contin- ued failure to produce a GP’s report to support the panic attack claims, Facebook’s lawyers argued the case should be struck out.

Counsel for J19 pointed to a psychiatrist assessment of him being a paranoid schizophrenic. Evidence clearly shows he is psychologically fragile, he added.

Mr Justice Colton accepted the man’s “undoubted medical frailty”. He said: “In this case there is no doubt that the plaintiff has behaved poorly by indicating that he had received medical evidence that he was unfit to attend court and by failing to provide any evidence to support this contention.” But he concluded: “I do not find that there has been a persistent and flagrant conduct of the type which would justify such an order.”

With J19’s lawyers cautioned that no further opportunities will be allowed, he listed the case for further review next month.