Former Taoiseach Mr Albert Reynolds walked jubilantly out of the Court of Appeal in London yesterday, having won a retrial of his libel case against the Sunday Times.
"I'm naturally thrilled and delighted with the judgment in all its aspects. I came to London in search of truth and justice and I think this judgment clearly reflects that," he commented outside the court.
It was very different from when he left the court in November 1996. Then he declared there had been a travesty of justice when the jury found he was libelled but awarded zero damages, which the judge altered to one penny.
He was also made liable for most of the costs, estimated at £800,000, as the award did not meet an offer made by the newspaper. If he had lost yesterday, Mr Reynolds would have faced a legal bill in excess of £1 million.
Yesterday, however, Mr Reynolds was smiling and satisfied. Accompanied by two of his daughters, Miriam and Leone, who are both barristers, he stated that the judgment had said quite clearly that he did not get a fair trial.
The three judges had ordered the retrial on the basis of misdirections by the trial judge, Mr Justice French, in his summary to the jury, and with that set aside the verdict, finding and judgment.
The trial judge's statements on factual narrative, damages, malice and plea of justification were strongly criticised in the appeal judgment, which was issued yesterday morning.
"The new trial is now granted. I believe, and I'm subject to correction, that it is only the second time in 25 years that a jury verdict has been overturned," he said.
However, the new trial may not take place for some time. The Sunday Times lost its argument that it had qualified privilege when it wrote the article in November 1994, at the time the Fianna Fail coalition collapsed and Mr Reynolds resigned as Taoiseach.
The newspaper's lawyers said they would petition the House of Lords for leave to appeal.
It could be four months before the application can be made to the judicial committee of the House of Lords, which would decide if a full appeal was justified.
Lord Lester QC, for the Sunday Times, had applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal, stating that they needed to go to the House of Lords before they could go to the European Court of Human Rights, if necessary.
Mr Reynolds's lawyer, Mr Andrew Caldecott QC, said his client was concerned not with commercial aspects but about vindicating his reputation.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham said he thought it best that they refused leave and left the decision to the House of Lords. Any retrial should await a decision of the House of Lords.
The question of costs of the first trial will also be put in abeyance. Mr Reynolds will be awarded the costs of his appeal relating to the seeking of a retrial. These still have to be assessed, as this aspect formed only a part of the seven-day appeals. The costs concerning the Sunday Times appeal on qualified privilege were adjourned.
If the House of Lords overturns the ruling on qualified privilege in favour of the Sunday Times, it is understood the retrial would still go ahead.
Outside the court, Mr Reynolds was not fazed by the thought of a delay. They still had to petition, he said. It was not for him to comment. "Naturally I want to finish it and get the retrial up and running. I'm having to suffer the delays."
Asked if the Sunday Times had made an offer, Mr Reynolds replied that it had not done so and there was no reason to believe it would. It had had the opportunity for mediation but had declined it.
Mr Reynolds will now join his wife Kathleen and daughter Cathy in Portugal.