The Supreme Court has dismissed Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd’s appeal against costs orders made after District Court Judge Joseph Mangan won a libel action.
A jury at the High Court retrial found for Mangan and awarded him €25,000 in damages. The Supreme Court’s decision, delivered by Mr Justice McCracken on 31 January 2003, concerned costs only. It did not revisit the jury’s verdict or damages award.
Mangan sued over an article published in the Sunday Independent on 22 March 1998. The newspaper defended the case on the grounds that the words did not carry the meaning Mangan claimed, that they were fair comment on a matter of public interest, and that they were true in substance and in fact.
The first trial, before Mr Justice Barr and a jury, began on 8 November 2000. On its second day, Mangan’s counsel objected to parts of the newspaper’s opening and asked for the jury to be discharged. The judge discharged the jury and awarded Mangan the costs of that hearing. In July 2001, the Supreme Court overturned the costs award against the newspaper and ordered that the costs of the High Court hearing would abide the outcome of the retrial.
The retrial began on 12 February 2002 before Ms Justice Carroll and a jury. After six days, the jury found for Mangan and awarded €25,000. The trial judge had withdrawn the defences of fair comment and justification from the jury. On 27 February, she awarded Mangan the costs of the entire action and the aborted first trial on the Circuit Court scale, with a certificate for Senior Counsel, and refused to make an order under section 17(5) of the Courts Act 1981.
The newspaper argued that the costs for the retrial should be limited to three days, which it said would have been sufficient for a Circuit Court hearing. The Supreme Court held that the trial judge could have limited costs by reference to hearing days but was not required to estimate how long a lower-court trial might have lasted. It upheld her decision to award costs for the full trial.
The Supreme Court also upheld the award of costs for the aborted trial. It noted that Mangan had requested discharge of the jury, but said the trial judge’s mistaken account of that request did not undermine her decision. The Court considered that the costs should follow the result of the retrial and that making Mangan bear them could consume his damages.
Finally, the Court found no error in refusing a section 17(5) order requiring Mangan to pay the newspaper an amount. It said the trial judge had exercised her discretion properly and that it was not unreasonable to bring a libel action in the High Court, where jury awards could vary. The appeal was dismissed.