Independent Newspapers was ordered by the High Court yesterday to pay costs under a number of headings arising from the recent libel action by the Democratic Left leader against the Sunday Independent.
Legal sources estimate the final bill for the various hearings involving Mr Proinsias De Rossa and Independent Newspapers could amount to £1.5 million.
Last July 31st a jury awarded Mr De Rossa £300,000 in damages arising from an article by Mr Eamon Dunphy in the Sunday Independent in 1992. Independent Newspapers is appealing that decision to the Supreme Court.
Last March a jury in the action failed to agree and was discharged. The costs of that hearing were left to be determined later.
A previous hearing last November was aborted after eight weeks, and costs for both sides were awarded against Independent Newspapers.
In the High Court yesterday Mr Justice Carney ordered the newspaper group to pay the costs of the trial which was held before him last July, including all reserved costs. He also ordered the group to pay the costs of the March trial.
Independent Newspapers was further ordered to pay the costs of taking evidence on commission in Moscow in preparation for the July trial. The judge made no order on costs in respect of yesterday's application. It is open to Independent Newspapers to contest the judge's decision.
Legal sources estimated at the conclusion of the 11-day hearing in July that the total costs of that trial would be in the region of £450,000. It was estimated that total costs of the 14-day trial in March and a number of pre-trial applications was about £600,000.
Following the eight-day aborted trial in the action last November, costs estimated at nearly £200,000 for each side were awarded against the newspaper. Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for Mr De Rossa, made an application for all reserved costs yesterday.
Mr Michael McDowell SC, for the newspaper, opposed the application. He said the onus of proof in any proceedings lay with the plaintiff. In the second hearing - when the jury disagreed - Mr De Rossa had failed to discharge the onus of proof and failed to convince the jury, counsel said.
The issue was fairly stark, he said. Mr De Rossa had failed in the second trial and now sought to visit the costs of it on the defence.
On the taking of evidence on commission in Moscow, Mr McDowell said the De Rossa side had failed to admit certain documents, and the onus was put on the defence of proving it. It turned out that a witness from Moscow was able to give evidence in Dublin but the defence did not know that at the time.
It was reasonable to take whatever steps were necessary to establish the existence of the documents, counsel said. He noted that the Moscow witness he had referred to had never been cross-examined by the plaintiff.
Mr Justice Carney said Mr De Rossa had pursued his case to the "bitter end", at the "gravest possible risk" to himself.
The judge said he was satisfied all the costs followed the event. It was a case which had been played "hardball" by each side for three trials, and extensive tactics were employed by each side.