The Supreme Court will this week hear the appeal of Fianna Fáil TD, Ms Beverley Cooper-Flynn, of the outcome of her failed libel action against RTÉ three years ago.
In her High Court libel action before a jury in February 2001, Ms Cooper-Flynn failed to prove that RTÉ and its reporter, Charlie Bird, had libelled her in a series of reports about her sale of investment products for National Irish Bank. They had alleged she encouraged people to evade paying tax.
Ms Cooper-Flynn also sued Mr James Howard, a retired farmer from Co Louth, who was one of those who told RTÉ that Ms Cooper-Flynn had encouraged him not to pay tax on money deposited.
The jury did not find Mr Howard's claims justified, though they found in favour of RTÉ on the general question that Ms Cooper-Flynn encouraged other people not to pay tax.
The appeal to the Supreme Court, which will be heard by a five-judge court presided over by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, on Wednesday, will be on points of law, not a re-hearing of the evidence.
The other judges hearing it are Mrs Justice Denham, Mrs Justice McGuinness, Mr Justice Geoghegan and Mr Justice Fennelly.
The appeal centres on a number of rulings made by Mr Justice Morris during the trial, and on his summing up.
It is understood that lawyers for Ms Cooper-Flynn will challenge the decision of Mr Justice Morris to allow the jury to see a letter written by Mr Patrick Cooney, an official in the NIB, referring to an investment product as being suitable for "hot money".
Ms Cooper-Flynn said she had never seen this letter, and it later emerged in evidence that it had not been sent.
The second major issue they are expected to raise concerns the charge to the jury. Mr Justice Morris charged the jury on the 27th day of the trial. However, at the end of the charge to the jury Mr Kevin Feeney SC, counsel for RTÉ, objected to it and drew his attention to a number of responses RTÉ had made and which had not been included in the judge's charge. He said he should recharge the jury, but Mr Justice Morris declined to do so.
Mr Feeney raised the matter again the next day, and Mr Justice Morris then agreed to speak to the jury again, recharging them on the points raised by Mr Feeney. Lawyers for Ms Cooper-Flynn are likely to argue that this was unfair, as the jury was then sent out with the criticisms of their case as the last thing they had heard, rather than them being re-charged on every aspect of the case.
The appeal will also raise the issue of the questions to the jury. The jury did not find Mr Howard's claims against Ms Cooper-Flynn to have been justified, though it found that she urged other people to evade tax. In the view of Ms Cooper-Flynn's lawyers, the questions to the jury gave Mr Howard the benefit of RTÉ's defence.
They will also argue that it is unfair, given that Mr Howard's claims were not found to have been justified, that she should have to pay all the costs of the case.
These have been estimated to run to about €500,000.
The case is listed for just one day, as another case is listed for Thursday. Judgment is likely to be reserved.
Even if Ms Cooper-Flynn eventually wins her appeal, this will only entitle her to a retrial, and the whole case would then have to go to the High Court again, at enormous expense.
If she does not wish to try the case again, then it will be as if she never took the case, and RTÉ's claims will lie unchallenged.
However, the issue of the costs of the original trial will remain outstanding.
The Supreme Court may offer some guidance on this in its judgment following Wednesday's hearing.