McDonagh -v- Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2017] IESC 59 (27 July 2017)

McDonagh -v- Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2017] IESC 59 (27 July 2017)

The Supreme Court held that the jury did answer Question 2 in the affirmative, as evidenced by their assessment of damages, and that the damages awarded (€900,000) were excessive and disproportionate given the plaintiff's poor reputation and the circumstances. The Court had jurisdiction to address these issues and substituted a substantially reduced award, reversing the Court of Appeal's order for a retrial.

Citation
[2017] IESC 59
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Martin McDonagh; Defendant/respondent: Sunday Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Damages award reduced; no retrial ordered; Supreme Court substituted its own award for the jury's.
Legal Topics
Damages Assessment, Jury Verdicts, Freedom of Expression, Justification Defence, Proportionality of Damages, Role of Appellate Courts, Section 22 Defamation Act 1961
Defamation Media Law Constitutional Law Damages Assessment Jury Verdicts Freedom of Expression Justification Defence Proportionality of Damages +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin McDonagh

Plaintiff/appellant

Sunday Newspapers Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury answered Question 2 on the issue paper regarding material injury to reputation
  2. 2 Whether the damages awarded by the jury were excessive and disproportionate
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to address Question 2 and damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the jury did answer Question 2 in the affirmative, as evidenced by their assessment of damages, and that the damages awarded (€900,000) were excessive and disproportionate given the plaintiff's poor reputation and the circumstances. The Court had jurisdiction to address these issues and substituted a substantially reduced award, reversing the Court of Appeal's order for a retrial.

Court Disposition

Damages award reduced; no retrial ordered; Supreme Court substituted its own award for the jury's.

Orders

  • Court of Appeal order reversed in full
  • Jury verdict reinstated as to liability