![]() ![]() One of those cases, initiated in 2004 over articles in the Evening Herald published by Independent Newspapers, led to a €1.87 million damages award in 2009, later reduced to €1.25m by the Supreme Court in 2014 on appeal. Ms Leech, the judge said, made a tactical decision to “park” this libel case, initiated in April 2005, while she pursued two other libel actions. Giving the appeal court's unanimous judgment, Ms Justice Mary Irvine held the High Court made legal errors in its assessment of where the balance of justice lay. The issue for the appeal court to decide was whether the balance of justice favoured dismissing the case or allowing it go ahead. She also alleged it was not prejudice by the delay. On the basis of those and other findings, the appeal was dismissed.Ms Leech had not disputed the High Court finding of inordinate and inexcusable delay on her part but she argued the newspaper acquiesced in that delay while she pursued two other libel cases. She further held Ms Leech is not now entitled to challenge the prohibition by means of an argument in relation to Article 6 of the European Convention On Human Rights where that was not pleaded or advanced in the High Court and was raised for the first time on appeal. She found the High Court correctly held that the general prohibition on raising new objections/argument in that court applied to Ms Leech in the circumstances of the case. Ms Justice Ni Raifeartaigh concluded it was not clear the Taxing Master committed a mere arithmetical error and/or that his ultimate conclusion on the solicitor’s instruction fee was manifestly the product of an error of that type. The High Court was also satisfied there was "no actual substance" in the quantification point. It found Ms Leech, who said she did not notice the error until after the taxation process had concluded, was not entitled to raise the issue on review because she had not raised it as an objection before the taxing Master. The High Court had said Ms Leech had sought to raise new grounds of objection in the High Court review concerning how the Taxing Master had quantified the instructions fee when the law clearly stated "that cannot be done". Get ahead of the day with the morning headlines at 7.30am and Fionnán Sheahan's exclusive take on the day's news every afternoon, with our free daily newsletter.Įnter email address This field is required Sign Up She appealed and, on Friday, the three judge Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. ![]() ![]() In December 2019, the High Court’s Mr Justice Anthony Barr held there was no basis to set aside the Taxing Master's decisions. ![]() Represented by lawyers, she later sought a High Court review of the Taxing Master’s rulings. There was no dispute the firm had done the work claimed for. Ms Leech represented herself in proceedings before a High Court Taxing Master concerning the fees and costs claimed by MCF under its seven-year retainer. Issues concerning the exact costs to be paid to Ms Leech by Independent Newspapers arising from the €1.25m award were parked pending the outcome of the taxation of the solicitor/client costs. Ms Leech had instructed solicitors McCann Fitzgerald (MCF) in late 2004 to represent her in defamation proceedings over the Evening Herald articles and also in defamation actions against other titles in the Independent Newspapers Group.Īfter the MCF retainer was terminated in August 2011, she later instructed a Co Waterford based firm, Kenny Stephenson Chapman. In 2015, the Supreme Court reduced the award on appeal to €1.25m, plus costs. Former public relations consultant Monica Leech has lost her appeal over rulings allowing a €165,000 instruction fee and certain other costs to a law firm which represented her in a defamation case.Ī High Court jury had awarded Ms Leech €1.87m damages, plus costs, in 2009 over articles published in the Evening Herald in 2004 ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |