The appropriate level of damages to be awarded to businessman Denis O'Brien as a result of his being defamed in an article in the Irish Mirror should be "very, very substantial", the jury was urged.
Paul O'Higgins SC, for Mr O'Brien, said the case could not but be considered in the highest category. Nobody could conclude that this matter did not go to the root and foundation of the whole of Denis O'Brien's business.
Counsel said Mr O'Brien had initiated legal proceedings in 1998 but it took until April 2006 for the Irish Mirror to make an admission in the matter. The Irish Mirror admitted there was "no shred of truth" in the suggestion Mr O'Brien paid a bribe to Ray Burke.
"It has taken eight years to secure that admission. During that time there has been no apology to Mr O'Brien," counsel said.
Mr O'Higgins said the jury now had to assess what was the appropriate response in damages. He said the Irish Mirror sold 58,000 copies on the day the article appeared in June 1998 and its readership was in the region of 180,000 to 195,000.
While Mr O'Brien was a very wealthy man, that should not deflect the jury "upwards or downwards" from what they feel is the proper value of the libel, counsel urged. They had to be fair to Mr O'Brien and the Mirror Group of newspapers.
This was a case involving a very well known man who was probably better known now than when the articles were published in the Irish Mirror, Mr O'Higgins said. Mr O'Brien now had 29 radio stations, including four in Ireland and others in eastern Europe.
The anonymous letter referred to in the article which made allegations against Mr O'Brien was never seen "then or now", counsel added.
Mr O'Brien had replied "Not prepared to answer " to four questions from the newspaper asking if he had ever made donations of more than £5,000 to Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael or donations of a combined value of more than £20,000 to Ray Burke or Michael Lowry and their parties.
He answered "No" to other questions asking if he had ever made a single donation to either Mr Burke or Mr Lowry.
Mr O'Brien was perfectly entitled to refuse to answer because, in the context in which he was asked, Mr O'Brien was in a no-win situation, counsel said.