De Rossa v. Independent Newspapers [1999] IESC 63; [1999] 4 IR 432 (30th July, 1999)

De Rossa v. Independent Newspapers [1999] IESC 63; [1999] 4 IR 432 (30th July, 1999)

The Supreme Court held that the established Irish practice—whereby the trial judge gives general directions on the principles for assessing damages in defamation cases, without providing specific figures or comparative awards—is constitutionally and legally sufficient. The law requires that damages be reasonable, fair, and proportionate, and appellate review is available if awards are disproportionately high. The Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights do not mandate the adoption of the more detailed guidelines advocated by the appellant. The award in this case, while substantial, was not so excessive as to warrant interference by the appellate court.

Citation
[1999] IESC 63
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Proinsias de Rossa T.D.; Defendant/appellant: Independent Newspapers Plc.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Defamation (libel) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Jury Verdict
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and award affirmed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Damages, Freedom of Expression, Jury Directions, Proportionality, Balancing of Rights
Defamation Constitutional Law Media Law Libel Damages Freedom of Expression Jury Directions Proportionality +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Proinsias de Rossa T.D.

Plaintiff/respondent

Independent Newspapers Plc.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Defamation (libel) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Jury Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the damages awarded for libel were excessive and disproportionate
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on damages were adequate and constitutionally compliant
  3. 3 Whether the absence of specific guidance to the jury on damages violates constitutional or Convention rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the established Irish practice—whereby the trial judge gives general directions on the principles for assessing damages in defamation cases, without providing specific figures or comparative awards—is constitutionally and legally sufficient. The law requires that damages be reasonable, fair, and proportionate, and appellate review is available if awards are disproportionately high. The Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights do not mandate the adoption of the more detailed guidelines advocated by the appellant. The award in this case, while substantial, was not so excessive as to warrant interference by the appellate court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and award affirmed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff/Respondent to recover £300,000 and costs from Defendant/Appellant.