The Court of Appeal has awarded Sean Corrigan his reasonable outlay for a successful appeal that revived, on a restricted basis, his libel action against Kevin P. Kilrane and Company Solicitors.
In a costs ruling delivered on 18 November 2020, Ms Justice Faherty said the respondent had not shown that the points on which Mr Corrigan was unsuccessful materially increased the costs of the appeal. The court ordered that he receive his reasonable outlay because he had been a lay litigant.
The appeal had been allowed in a principal judgment delivered on 8 April 2020. The High Court had struck out the defamation proceedings in their entirety. The Court of Appeal found that the email at issue was capable of bearing one of the defamatory meanings Mr Corrigan had attributed to it, but not all of them. It also held that the trial judge should not have decided whether the email attracted qualified privilege while Mr Corrigan’s plea of malice remained to be determined.
Mr Corrigan sought the costs of defending the respondent’s High Court motion to strike out the proceedings, as well as the costs of the appeal. The respondent asked the court to reserve both costs questions until trial, arguing that the scope and eventual outcome of the revived claim remained uncertain. It also argued that, as a lay litigant, Mr Corrigan could recover only vouched expenses.
Justice Faherty rejected the request to defer the appeal costs issue. She said the respondent’s arguments sought to reargue matters already decided and did not establish that Mr Corrigan had raised unmeritorious points or that unsuccessful points had materially increased the hearing’s costs. Although he was not entirely successful because the court accepted only one of the meanings he advanced, he had revived the action, albeit on a much narrower basis.
For the High Court costs, the court proposed to vacate the existing award and replace it with an order that neither side pay costs. Edwards and Murray JJ. agreed with the proposed costs order. The ruling addressed costs following the appeal; it did not determine the merits of the remaining libel action.