Murphy to appeal €300,000 award

Businessman Joseph Murphy is to appeal to the Supreme Court against a jury's decision that he should pay €300,000 damages to …

Businessman Joseph Murphy is to appeal to the Supreme Court against a jury's decision that he should pay €300,000 damages to a Co Sligo man for slander.

One third of the amount is to be paid in October next but the High Court has placed a stay on payment of the rest pending the outcome of the appeal.

Hugh Mohan SC, for Mr Murphy, a director of Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering Ltd, told the High Court today his client was appealing against both the finding of slander and the level of the award in the case.

This was "an extraordinary sum of money for a slander action", Mr Mohan said.

READ MORE

The €300,000 was awarded last month against Mr Murphy, who has a London address, to a self employed contractor, Michael McManus.

Mr McManus, Mulberry Park, Ballinoade, Co Sligo, had sued the businessman over comments made by Mr Murphy in Flynn's pub in Arigna, Co Leitrim to Mr McManus's brother Eoin following a funeral.

Mr McManus had claimed the words related to a fire at Hillside Quarries, Arigna, in August 2000 when two excavator machines were destroyed in an apparent arson attack.

The jury decided, by a majority verdict, that the words uttered by Mr Murphy meant that Michael McManus was responsible for or involved in the incident.

Mr Mohan asked that a stay be put on the pay out of the award pending the Supreme Court appeal.

This was one of the largest awards in the courts for slander and all of the previous indications from the Supreme Court in relation to defamation awards suggested the damages will be dramatically cut, he said.

Opposing the stay application, Colm Smyth SC, for Mr McManus, said he could not imagine a case of more serious slander. The case had been run in a manner to rubbish the reputation of his client and was a very serious case, he said.

Mr Justice Eamon De Valera said he would not be surprised if the award was reduced going on previous experience of the Supreme Court. He ordered that one third of the award be paid out but agreed to stay payment of that amount to October and to stay payment of the remainder pending the appeal.