The Supreme Court has reduced the damages awarded to Monica Leech in her libel case against Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited, setting aside the jury’s €1.872 million award and substituting €1.25 million.
The appeal concerned damages only. A High Court jury had found that articles published in the Evening Herald between 30 November and 17 December 2004 meant Ms Leech had an extramarital affair with then Environment Minister Martin Cullen. The jury rejected a separate suggested meaning that she travelled to New York with Mr Cullen for a United Nations conference and failed to attend it.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Dunne on 19 December 2014, said appellate courts should be slow to interfere with jury awards. It could set the award aside only if it was so disproportionate to the injury and wrong that no reasonable jury would have made it.
The court described the libel as very serious. It said the articles attacked Ms Leech’s personal and professional integrity and ran as a sustained campaign over more than two weeks. The judgment noted evidence that her newly launched consultancy did not get off the ground after her business partner withdrew, her Department of the Environment contract was not renewed, and the articles caused distress to her and her family. The court also considered the newspaper’s lack of an apology, its unsuccessful justification defence, and the cropping and alteration of photographs used with the articles.
However, the Supreme Court concluded that the award was excessive, even though the case ranked towards the higher end of seriousness. Ms Leech had instructed her lawyers to seek a new jury assessment if the award were found excessive. The court instead said it was desirable to bring the litigation to an end and substituted €1.25 million in damages.
The court did not decide the newspaper’s separate complaint about an interim order for payment of €750,000 in damages and €100,000 in costs, saying it was unnecessary to address that issue. The Supreme Court allowed the newspaper’s appeal and made no further change to the jury’s finding on the libel meanings.