The High Court has ordered Fianna Fβil national organiser Mr Seβn Sherwin to pay costs estimated at about £100,000 to Independent Newspapers arising from his libel action against the Sunday Independent.
Mr Sherwin was awarded damages of £250 by a High Court jury last week after it found he was libelled in a newspaper article of February 14th, 1999.
When the issue of costs came before the court yesterday, Mr Sherwin was awarded costs of £5,000 against Independent Newspapers. However, he was required to pay a proportion of the costs incurred by Independent Newspapers.
Mr Justice O'Sullivan ruled that Independent Newspapers was entitled to an order for costs equal to half the amount of the difference between its High Court costs and what its costs would have been if the case had taken place in the Circuit Court. Legal sources later estimated this sum at about £100,000.
Mr Sherwin will also have to pay his own legal team, which at normal rates could be in excess of £200,000, making a total bill for him of some £300,000. However, it is not known whether his own legal team will charge him full costs.
In its decision last week, the jury found that words complained of in the Sunday Independent article meant that Mr Sherwin wrongfully solicited money from a Luton-based Irish property developer, Mr Tom Gilmartin, for his sister-in-law, Ms Catherine Sherwin.
The jury also decided that the words were not substantially true in substance and in fact and went on to make the £250 award.
Mr Kevin Feeney SC, for Independent Newspapers, had applied for Mr Sherwin to pay the entire defence costs on the basis that the £250 award was nominal.
Failing that, he argued, Mr Sherwin should pay at least the difference between the defence costs in the High Court and what they would have been if the case had gone to the Circuit Court. At best, it was submitted, Mr Sherwin should get costs of not more than £5,000.
Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for Mr Sherwin, argued that his client should receive full Circuit Court costs from the defence and that Independent Newspapers should not be paid its costs by Mr Sherwin.
In his judgment, Mr Justice O'Sullivan said Mr Sherwin was claiming the costs of the action in a case where the defence of justification of the relevant article had failed.
The first issue to decide was whether the award of £250 damages was nominal. He was satisfied that could not be said.
The second issue was whether Mr Sherwin was entitled to an order for costs under the Courts Act, 1991, without qualification or whether the amount of costs should be limited or capped in accordance with a part of the legislation.
He said it would be anomalous if not perverse for the court to make provision for costs more favourable to Mr Sherwin where he had been less successful than provided for in the Courts Act.
The question was whether the order for costs should be limited to the amount of the award, £250; or between £5,000 and £15,000.
He was exercising his discretion as distinct from the strict letter of the statute and was limiting the amount to £5,000.
With regard to Independent Newspapers' counterclaim for costs under the Courts Act, he had been urged to take account of several factors.
In his opinion, the most important circumstances in the costs application was the jury's verdict on the question of justification.
Mr Justice O'Sullivan said Mr Sherwin had elected to proceed his action in the High Court in a case where he could have achieved the same result in the Circuit Court in proceedings which would have involved the defence in much less cost and expense.