A Supreme Court judge has backed the figure proposed by a colleague in a defamation appeal, while saying the jury’s damages award should not be disturbed under the usual legal test.
In a judgment delivered on 7 March 2022, Marie Baker J. said an appellate court should respect a jury’s award unless it is disproportionate to the point that no reasonable jury could have reached it. She rejected the view that the Defamation Act 2009 gave appeal courts a broader discretion to replace jury awards simply because they preferred another figure.
The appeal concerned Captain Páidraig Higgins and the Irish Aviation Authority. A jury had found the Authority’s actions defamatory and awarded general damages. Baker J. said the award reflected the jury’s assessment of the serious imputation against Higgins, his personal and professional reputation, and the effect on him. She considered it neither extravagant nor so disproportionate that it should be reversed.
Baker J. also agreed with MacMenamin J.’s analysis and conclusion on aggravated damages. The judgment does not state the figures for either damages award in this separate opinion.
The five-judge court did not reach consensus on the amount of general damages. Baker J. said the choice was between substituting a figure or sending the damages issue back for a new jury trial. Higgins had made clear during the appeal that he wanted the litigation to end and did not want a retrial. On that pragmatic basis, Baker J. agreed with the figure arrived at by MacMenamin J. The separate judgment does not specify that figure or set out the final order of the Court as a whole.