The Fianna Fail TD Ms Beverley Cooper-Flynn is facing a bill of up to £2 million after being ordered by the High Court yesterday to pay the entire costs of her unsuccessful action for damages over a series of RTE broadcasts in which she claimed she was libelled.
The decision of the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Morris, means the Co Mayo TD will not only have to meet her own costs of the 28-day trial but also those of the defendants: RTE; an RTE journalist, Mr Charlie Bird; and a retired farmer, Mr James Howard, of Wheaton Hall, Co Louth.
She must also pay the costs of pre-trial court hearings; the discovery of documents which totalled some 10,000 pages; witness expenses; and overnight transcripts of the trial.
The judge allowed a stay on his order for costs in the event of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday lawyers for all sides made submissions on the costs issue.
In his judgment delivered yesterday, Mr Justice Morris rejected submissions on behalf of Ms Cooper-Flynn that the general rule - "Costs should follow the event" - should not apply.
The issue he had to consider was whether, in obtaining a finding from the jury that she did not induce Mr Howard to evade paying his lawful taxes, Ms Cooper-Flynn had obtained "something of value".
If this were the only issue in the case, it would be of immeasurable value, the judge said. But, coupled with the jury's finding that Ms Cooper-Flynn had in fact advised and encouraged other persons - four people who gave evidence - to evade tax, the finding in relation to Mr Howard was valueless.
Mr Justice Morris said Ms Cooper-Flynn claimed she was libelled in a number of TV and radio broadcasts. In them it was alleged that she induced Mr Howard to evade his lawful obligations to pay tax by not availing of the tax amnesty and, moreover, declined to return an investment he had made in a CMI personal portfolio to him for the purpose of paying the tax.
It was also alleged she had induced others to invest in the CMI personal portfolio and had pointed out to them in the course of so doing the advantages which the investment had for tax evasion.
Ms Cooper-Flynn denied ever having spoken to Mr Howard and in particular denied ever making the statements which he attributed to her. Moreover, she denied ever advising or encouraging other persons to purchase the CMI personal portfolio for the purpose of evading tax.
The jury found the defendants had not proved Ms Cooper-Flynn induced Mr Howard to evade his lawful obligation to pay tax by not availing of the tax amnesty.
They found the defendants had proved she advised or encouraged other persons to evade tax. They decided Ms Cooper-Flynn's reputation had not suffered as a result of the publication relating to Mr Howard and awarded no damages.
The first matter that was in contention between the parties - what conversation, if any, took place between Ms Cooper-Flynn and Mr Howard - was answered in her favour, the judge said.
It was correct that the broadcasting of this alleged conversation on a number of occasions had brought this matter to a head, and it was also correct, notwithstanding Ms Cooper-Flynn's repeated denials that any such conversation took place and her demands for a withdrawal and an apology, that RTE had continued to broadcast this report.
The judge said it was probably correct to say it was because Mr Bird targeted Ms Cooper-Flynn and, in his reports, repeated the allegations, that she had little option, since she was a TD and member of the Public Accounts Committee, but to appropriately react to the allegations. She instituted proceedings claiming damages for libel.
Mr Justice Morris quoted the Rules of the Superior Courts as providing for the costs of every action tried by a jury to follow the event unless the court, for "special cause", otherwise directed.
Counsel for Ms Cooper-Flynn had argued "special causes" were created through Ms Cooper-Flynn succeeding on the Howard question and as a result of the conduct of the defendants both before and during the case and the manner in which the case was met in court.
But the judge said: "I am unable to identify anything in any of the criticisms referred to by counsel, which may or may not be correct, which are of such a grievous nature as could cause me to depart from the general rule."
All the matters referred to were of relevance only if the jury were to address the issue of damages, he said.
The full text of the judgment is available from the Irish Times website, www.ireland.com