COMMUNICATIONS consultant Monica Leech should be paid €750,000, plus €100,000 towards her legal costs, pending an appeal against a record €1.8 million libel award over articles in the Evening Herald, the High Court has ruled.
However, Mr Justice Eamon de Valera granted Independent Newspapers (Irl) Ltd, which owns the Herald, a short stay of his decision ordering payment of €750,000 to allow the newspaper to make an early application to the Supreme Court to appeal that payment order.
The newspaper group is appealing against the entire award but it is expected to be some time before that full appeal comes on for hearing.
Mr Justice De Valera was ruling yesterday on applications by Ms Leech’s side for costs and by Independent Newspapers for a stay on the award pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.
A High Court jury made the award, the highest ever in a libel action, after it reached a majority verdict that she was libelled in a series of Evening Heraldarticles in 2004 which, the jury found, meant she was having an affair with then minister for the environment Martin Cullen.
An assessment of €1,872,000 in damages was reached by the jury whose forewoman, the court heard, was an accountant.
The court also heard yesterday that Ms Leech had received €375,000 from RTÉ and €125,000 from the Daily Mailin settlement of two separate libel actions.
She lost a separate case against Independent Newspapers over an Irish Independentarticle and payment of the €200,000-€300,000 costs order made against her in that case is on hold pending her appeal to the Supreme Court.
Yesterday, applying for a stay on the €1.87 million award, Eoin McCullough SC, for Independent Newspapers, argued the decision by the jury was disproportionate in terms of other libel awards and “an affront to justice” as people who were seriously injured would not receive such damages.
Paul O’Higgins SC, for Ms Leech, argued libel cases were different and he urged the court to order an immediate payout of €750,000.
Mr Justice De Valera directed that payment out, subject to a short stay, and also awarded Ms Leech costs but postponed the payment of the costs subject to €100,000 being paid out pending the appeal.
The judge said he believed, on the balance of probabilities, the Supreme Court would rule that Independent Newspapers would be liable for the award.
While a very large award, it would be “very dangerous” to compare this case with others because they lacked a number of factors which this case had, including the nature of the allegations, the length of time the case took to come to court and the fact this was not just one article but a series of them over a period of time.
He had to attach significance to this and to the fact the articles had affected not just Ms Leech’s moral reputation but her professional standing and her PR business.
Rejecting arguments that Independent Newspapers may not be able to recover any money given to Ms Leech should it win its appeal, the judge said he believed she would have no difficulty in paying it back.
While a cogent argument could be made to the Supreme Court that the award was out of balance with previous awards, he believed there should be a payment of €750,000.
Earlier, Mr McCullough said it would be argued before the Supreme Court, that in his summing up to the jury, Mr Justice De Valera had excluded large quantities of evidence which had been given during the trial.
It would also be argued that the judge erred in telling the jury only those members who had voted in favour of saying Ms Leech had been libelled could then assess damages. It would be further argued the award was grossly disproportionate in relation to previous libel awards.
The Supreme Court had set aside as disproportionate a IR£250,000 (€317,000) award to businessman Denis O’Brien for a libel by Mirror Group Newspapers but that award was later increased in a retrial by a new jury to €750,000. If the Supreme Court had found that first award to Mr O’Brien disproportionate, the Leech award must be grossly disproportionate.
The Supreme Court had also made comparisons between libel awards and awards to persons in personal injuries cases and the award in this case was four or five times that made to persons for catastrophic injuries.
That represented an affront to justice and was something the Supreme Court was very likely to interfere with, Mr McCullough said.
Mr McCullough asked the court to consider paying out a sum pending appeal similar to the €90,000 paid to a Sligo man who won a €900,000 libel case against a newspaper.