The Supreme Court set aside a jury’s €900,000 damages award to Martin McDonagh in his defamation action against Sunday Newspapers Limited, finding it disproportionate. The Court assessed replacement damages itself, but did not disclose the amount after the parties agreed it should not be published.
The case arose from a Sunday World article published on 5 September 1999. Its front-page headline described McDonagh as a “new drug king”; the article also alleged he was a loan shark. Although it did not name him, the judgment said he was readily identifiable from the article and photographs.
At the 2008 trial, the jury found that the newspaper had not proved McDonagh was a drug dealer or loan shark. It accepted that he was a tax evader and a criminal, matters McDonagh had not contested at trial. The jury awarded him €900,000. The defendant challenged the award, and the case reached the Supreme Court after earlier appeal proceedings.
In her judgment delivered on 27 July 2017, Ms Justice Dunne said appellate courts should be slow to interfere with a jury’s assessment, but may set an award aside if it is so disproportionate that no reasonable jury would have made it. She described the allegation of involvement in importing a large quantity of drugs as serious and noted the article’s wide publication. She also considered McDonagh’s prior convictions and a 2004 settlement with the Criminal Assets Bureau concerning tax, capital gains tax and social welfare payments.
Dunne J concluded that the €900,000 award was disproportionate and far greater than necessary to address the harm to McDonagh’s reputation. She rejected a fresh jury assessment in the High Court as an exceptional step warranted by the long passage of time, likely further delay and expense, and the difficulty witnesses could face recalling events. The article had appeared in 1999, and the judgment noted that a retrial could be followed by another appeal.
The Court therefore assessed damages itself. The judgment says the parties reached agreement on the appropriate damages and costs, and asked the Court not to publish its assessed figure. Dunne J said she agreed with the Court’s majority not to state the amount. This judgment records her agreement with judgments delivered by Chief Justice Denham and O’Donnell J; it does not set out the full reasons of the Court’s majority.