The High Court Taxing Master yesterday further reduced the legal bill submitted by lawyers who represented Ms Noelle Campbell-Sharpe in her libel action against Independent Newspapers.
Ms Campbell-Sharpe was awarded £70,000 by a High Court jury in May 1997 after they found she was libelled in an article by Hugh Leonard published in the Sunday Independent on April 26th, 1992.
The High Court hearing lasted five days. An appeal against the award was later dismissed by the Supreme Court. The total legal bill submitted on behalf of Ms Campbell-Sharpe's lawyers was more than £350,000 but the Taxing Master earlier this year reduced that figure to £244,391.
Independent Newspapers lodged an objection to the £37,000 allowed by the Taxing Master to Ms Campbell-Sharpe's solicitors as their instruction fees. The solicitors had sought £45,000 but Master James Flynn rejected that sum. Yesterday, Master Flynn held that £37,000 was fair and reasonable.
The newspaper group also objected to the Taxing Master's finding that senior counsel should receive brief fees of £16,800 and junior counsel should get a brief fee of £11,200 for the High Court hearing. The senior counsel had sought brief fees of £26,250 each and the junior had asked for £16,800.
Yesterday, Master Flynn held that the reduced brief fees were also fair and reasonable.
However, he decided the brief fees sought for the Supreme Court hearing of an appeal against the High Court findings were somewhat "on the elevated scale." Master Flynn said counsel for Ms Sharpe had sought fees similar to the High Court fees but the level of work was not of a similar nature.
The evidence proferred to him indicated that counsel was not required to do any extra work on the substantive issue and had maintained their High Court approach, Master Flynn said.
The fee in respect of the Supreme Court hearing should be less than that allowed for the High Court proceedings. He upheld Independent Newspapers' objections and allowed brief fees of £6,750 for each senior and £4,500 for junior counsel in the Supreme Court appeal.