The Supreme Court has set aside a jury’s €900,000 libel award against Sunday Newspapers Limited and substituted a lower award, while upholding the jury’s findings that the newspaper had not proved allegations that Martin McDonagh was a drug dealer and a loan shark. The court did not disclose the replacement amount, saying the parties had settled the proceedings and it would be unfair to be more specific.
The case arose from a Sunday World article published on 5 September 1999. The article did not name McDonagh, but used a nickname and a photograph by which he was recognisable. The court said its thrust was to allege that he was a drug dealer, loan shark, tax evader and criminal.
After a five-day trial in 2008, a jury found that the newspaper had proved the allegations of tax evasion and criminality, but not drug dealing or loan sharking. It awarded McDonagh €900,000 and costs. The Court of Appeal later overturned the drug-dealing finding and ordered a retrial on loan sharking. It also considered the jury’s failure to record an express answer to a separate question about whether the unproved allegations materially harmed McDonagh’s reputation required a retrial.
On appeal, the Supreme Court restored the jury’s findings on drug dealing and loan sharking. In the judgment delivered by O’Donnell J., the court also rejected the argument that the missing written answer required a retrial. The jury had proceeded to assess damages, which the issue paper instructed it to do only if it found material injury to reputation. The court treated that sequence as showing the jury had rejected the newspaper’s statutory defence.
The Supreme Court unanimously held the €900,000 award excessive. It considered factors including the seriousness and prominence of the allegations, the fact that McDonagh was not named in the article, and his admitted poor reputation. The court concluded that a retrial so long after the events would be less just than resolving the case on appeal, and substituted its own award.
The judgment was delivered on 27 July 2017. It records that the parties had settled the proceedings; accordingly, the replacement amount was not specified.