O'Brien v. Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd. [2000] IESC 70 (25th October, 2000)

O'Brien v. Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd. [2000] IESC 70 (25th October, 2000)

The jury's award of £250,000 in libel damages was disproportionately high and should be set aside; the Supreme Court is not justified in departing from its previous decision in De Rossa v. Independent Newspapers Plc regarding jury guidance on damages; the trial judge was correct not to leave exemplary damages to the jury as there was no evidence of malice or calculated profit; the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the earlier abortive trial as its collapse was not his responsibility.

Citation
[2000] IESC 70
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Denis O'Brien; Defendant/appellant: Mirror Group Newspapers Limited; Defendant/appellant: Piers Morgan; Defendant/appellant: Neil Leslie; Defendant/appellant: Karl Brophy
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation/libel) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; new trial ordered on the issue of damages only; cross-appeal dismissed except as to costs of earlier trial, which are awarded to the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Libel, Damages Assessment, Freedom of Expression, Jury Directions, Stare Decisis, Punitive Damages, Costs
Defamation Media Law Tort Law Constitutional Law Libel Damages Assessment Freedom of Expression Jury Directions +3 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denis O'Brien

Plaintiff/respondent

Mirror Group Newspapers Limited

Defendant/appellant

Piers Morgan

Defendant/appellant

Neil Leslie

Defendant/appellant

Karl Brophy

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation/libel) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's award of £250,000 in libel damages was excessive and should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court should revisit its previous decision in De Rossa v. Independent Newspapers Plc regarding jury guidance in libel damages
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to leave aggravated, punitive, or exemplary damages to the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's award of £250,000 in libel damages was disproportionately high and should be set aside; the Supreme Court is not justified in departing from its previous decision in De Rossa v. Independent Newspapers Plc regarding jury guidance on damages; the trial judge was correct not to leave exemplary damages to the jury as there was no evidence of malice or calculated profit; the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the earlier abortive trial as its collapse was not his responsibility.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; new trial ordered on the issue of damages only; cross-appeal dismissed except as to costs of earlier trial, which are awarded to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Set aside the jury's award of £250,000 in damages.
  • Order a new trial limited to the assessment of damages.