The Supreme Court has ruled that a €900,000 jury award to Martin McDonagh in his defamation case against Sunday Newspapers Limited was excessive, while holding that the jury had answered a key question about the impact of unproven allegations on his reputation.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Denham on 27 July 2017, followed an appeal concerning a 1999 newspaper article that described Mr McDonagh as a drug dealer and loan shark, among other allegations. The jury found the newspaper had not proved those two allegations, but had proved that Mr McDonagh was a tax evader and a criminal. It awarded him €900,000.
The Court of Appeal had set aside the entirety of the jury verdict in 2015. The Supreme Court later reversed that order. In the judgment now addressing consequential issues, the court considered whether the jury had answered the issue paper’s second question: whether the allegations not proved true materially injured Mr McDonagh’s reputation, having regard to the charges found true.
The newspaper argued that there was no answer and that the verdict could not stand. Mr McDonagh’s counsel argued that the jury had answered yes. The Supreme Court accepted that analysis. It said the jury’s decision to assess damages showed that it had answered the second question affirmatively, as the issue paper directed. The court also held it had jurisdiction to decide that consequential issue in the appeal.
On damages, the newspaper submitted that the award was disproportionate. Mr McDonagh’s counsel argued that the seriousness and impact of the allegations, their publication and the newspaper’s conduct justified a substantial award. The judgment recounts evidence from Mr McDonagh and his daughter about the alleged effects on his life and family; these were submissions and evidence considered by the court, not separate findings stated in the text.
The Supreme Court said damages must be fair and proportionate and concluded that €900,000 was not proportionate. It considered the gravity of the libel, its effect, the extent of publication and the newspaper’s conduct. It also noted Mr McDonagh’s criminal record, tax evasion, settlement with the Criminal Assets Bureau and undisputed evidence relating to drugs as relevant to assessing damages, while stating that these matters did not give the newspaper a licence to defame him.
The judgment says a fair award would be “much nearer” to the figure proposed by the newspaper, but the supplied text ends without stating a replacement amount or setting out the final order. It therefore does not establish the final damages payable or the disposition of any remaining issues.