THE result was "unjust and immoral" and there was "something wrong" with the British justice system. But no, Mr Albert Reynolds was not bowed down yesterday.
He had no regrets - not even after the judge decided that he should, after all, get some damages.
One penny, sterling.
"It is unjust and immoral to win on the substantial issue of the case, and then for somebody to ask you to pay the costs of the person you defeated," said Mr Reynolds, standing outside the Royal Courts of Justice at the end of the latest, but by no means the last, episode off his case against the Sunday Times.
"There is something wrong with a justice system if that is going to be the end result."
With his London based solicitor, Ms Pamela Cassidy, by his side; Mr Reynolds stressed that he was prepared to appeal and would fight for a retrial, whatever the price. His legal bill could double to an estimated £2 million if the Court of Appeal rules that he has no grounds.
"There are many aspects of the summing up, the misdirections and the no directions that have to be gone through. On the face of it, it looks like there are grounds for appeal", he said.
On Tuesday afternoon after three days of deliberations, the jury of six men and five women agreed by a majority of 10-1 that Mr Reynolds had been libelled by a Sunday Times article which said he had lied to his cabinet colleagues and misled the Dail over the extradition of the paedophile priest, Brendan Smyth.
However the jury, again by a majority of 10-1, decided that Mr Reynolds's reputation had not been affected by the article and awarded him "zero" damages.
Appearing relaxed and joking with his supporters outside the court following further legal argument over the costs of the case, Mr Reynolds declared: "I am just going to have to work a bit harder. .. Whatever the price is at the end of the day it won't put me out of business.
Ms Cassidy said the Reynolds legal team had 28 days to lodge its grounds of appeal and agreed that Fit was "being actively considered".
Although Mr Reynolds repeatedly refused to comment upon the jury's decision to award him no damages, stating that it was "not for me to get inside their minds", he dismissed the Sunday Times's claim that he was the loser.
"I took this case to clear my name. There was an accusation that I lied to the Dail, that was cleared up and to me that is very important.
"Whatever the costs, at the end of the day this has given me what money can't buy. Whether in politics or business your word is your bond and your reputation is too important to put a price on it," he said.
When asked about his "litigious reputation" Mr Reynolds pointed out that all his other previous cases had been settled out of court and listed a number of other politicians who had also sued for libel, including the Tanaiste, Mr Spring.
"I won't stand for people telling lies about me," he added.
Although he acknowledged that the five and a half week trial had been a "difficult time", Mr Reynolds insisted he had no regrets and stressed that his family had supported his decision to sue the Sunday Times.
"I am disappointed the Sunday Times didn't offer an apology. I wouldn't be here if the record had been corrected but I have no regrets.
"If I had not taken the case it would have been eating away at me until the last days of my life," he said.