Counsel for retired Co Louth farmer Mr James Howard told the High Court today he saw "no reasons to part from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event" in the libel action taken by Ms Beverley Cooper-Flynn.
Arguing that Ms Cooper-Flynn should be liable for Mr Howard's costs, Mr Paul O'Higgins SC told the High Court that allegations brought against Ms Cooper-Flynn by, Mr Howard, were "wrong rather than intentionally false".
Mr O'Higgins said the jury's finding on March 23rd last, that Mr Howard had not been induced to evade tax by Ms Cooper-Flynn, contrary to his accusation, did "not import any impropriety on Mr Howard's part...and is incapable of doing so".
He added the jury had also found in "absolutely uncompromising terms" that Ms Cooper-Flynn's reputation had not been damaged by allegations made in the RTÉ broadcasts.
He said he saw "no reasons to part from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event", whereby Ms Cooper-Flynn would be liable for the trial expenses.
Submissions were being heard today on who will pay the costs of the recent libel case taken by Ms Cooper-Flynn against RTÉ and Mr Howard.
Counsel for Ms Cooper-Flynn, Mr Patrick Cooney SC, however, insisted that for Mr Howard to avoid payment of damages would go against the broader justice of the case.
"Surely it is intrinsically wrong that he should walk away scott-free", he said.
Mr Cooney also raised his concern with the fact that Mr Howard's legal fees had been paid by RTÉ. Although Mr Howard was the subject of an independent libel suit by Ms Cooper-Flynn, he was also a witness for the RTÉ defence case.
Earlier today, RTÉ told the High Court that Ms Cooper-Flynn gave false testimony during her libel trial against the company and that its defence of justification had succeeded.
Counsel for RTÉ Mr Kevin Feeney SC suggested that the cost of the seven week long libel trial should not be paid by RTÉ.
Mr Feeney reminded Mr Justice Morris that the trial jury had found that although Ms Cooper-Flynn had not sold Mr Howard a CMI policy for the purpose of tax evasion she had advised other people to evade tax.
He said Ms Cooper-Flynn had constantly denied this under oath and said such "false evidence" must be recognised by the court and considered with regard to costs.
Mr Feeney also said that the reputation Ms Cooper-Flynn claimed was libeled "did not properly exist" in that in reality she "was a person who would sell products knowing they would evade tax", and added the jury had found her reputation was not materially damaged by the RTÉ broadcast.
However, Mr Cooney put it to Mr Justice Morris that the "broad justice of this case requires that the plaintiff get her costs" in relation to the RTÉ broadcasts which, he said, the jury had found to contain false evidence.
He also criticised the conduct of RTÉ journalist Mr Charlie Bird and said that as "an experienced television reporter" he should have investigated Mr Howard's claims more thoroughly.
On March 23rd, the jury decided the defendants had proved she had advised or encouraged a number of persons referred to in evidence during the trial to evade tax.
The jury also found the defendants had not proved that Ms Cooper-Flynn had induced Mr Howard to evade tax.
Judge Morris is expected to give his verdict tomorrow afternoon.