MR Albert Reynolds will learn within the month whether he will have to pay an estimated £1 million in legal costs, a judge at the Royal Courts of Justice announced yesterday.
Mr Justice French reserved judgment on whether The Sunday Times was justified in printing an article accusing Mr Reynolds of being a liar on the grounds of qualified, privilege. On Tuesday, a London jury agreed by 10-1 that he had been libelled.
However, The Sunday Times claims it was justified in printing the article because the jury also agreed that the paper had correctly reported Mr Dick Spring's stated reasons in the Dail for ending the government: the alleged libellous comments, therefore, should be covered by parliamentary privilege.
A final costs order will be officially made when Mr Justice French rules on this unprecedented issue. If he rules for the newspaper, Mr Reynolds will have to pay the entire existing legal bill.
But Mr Justice French provisionally ruled on Thursday, following the jury's decision to award him "zero" damages, that "in justice and in fairness" Mr Reynolds should only be liable for The Sunday Times's legal costs from September 20th when he rejected its offer of £5,005.
After The Sunday Times concluded its two day test case on qualified privilege, Mr Justice French said the issues it had raised, which would result in greater press freedom and a change in the English law, were "complex."
Stating that he realised his ruling would be subject to immediate appeal, Mr Justice French added: "It is quite plain this matter is going higher, so it will not be an elaborate judgment."
Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, for the Sunday Times, told the judge he expected the case would be subject to many separate appeals on the issues of costs, qualified privilege and Mr Reynolds's appeal for a retrial.
Earlier, Mr Andrew Caldecott QC, for Mr Reynolds, denied the newspaper's claims that its defence was supported by the European Court of Human Rights because it was an issue of freedom of speech.
After saying Article 10, which related to the issue, was not subject to English law, Mr Caldecott stated: "Having regard to the writing of Article 10, freedom of speech is not a primary right."
Concluding his opening speech, Mr Caldecott said if newspapers were granted qualified privilege their powers "could get out of hand. Such a ruling would put the balance too much in favour of the press and too much against an individual's right to a reputation."
In his rebuttal, Lord Lester described the Reynolds libel case as "a paradigm example" of an allegation which was virtually impossible for the Sunday Times to successfully defend and prove to be true under existing laws.
He said the allegations in the case related to Mr Reynolds's state of knowledge at various times of facts which the article alleged he had deliberately hidden from the Dail and his cabinet colleagues. "Errors of fact, particularly in regard to a man's mental states and processes, are inevitable," he said.
Lord Lester added it was the media's duty to inform the public and it was the public's right to receive the information. This, he argued, would be enhanced if newspapers had the right to qualified privilege.