ALL legal costs and expenses incurred since the beginning of the aborted trial of the libel action by Minister for Social Welfare, Mr De Rossa, against the Sunday Independent were awarded to him by the High Court yesterday.
Mr Justice McCracken also allowed Mr De Rossa all outlay incurred in the three weeks before the start of the trial and 50 per cent of solicitors' instruction fees.
Legal sources estimated the costs of both legal teams to date could be over £200,000.
At the conclusion of the eighth day of the trial on Tuesday, the judge discharged the jury and fell over the question of costs until yesterday. It was discharged following an article by Gene Kerrigan in the Sunday Independent last weekend.
Mr De Rossa claimed that an article by Eamon Dunphy in the Sunday Independent on December 13th, 1992, associated him with truly horrible activities such as subversion, armed robbery, drugs, prostitution and protection rackets.
The defence admitted it published the words but denied that they were published falsely or maliciously as alleged.
Yesterday the judge said the question of costs was a matter for the discretion of the court and there were few if any precedents for the present situation.
In this case, he had discharged the jury. He thought there was a substantial risk that the jury would be misled and hopelessly confused as a result of the Kerrigan article.
Having heard Mr Kerrigan's evidence, he accepted there was no question of his being asked to write a misleading article or that there was wrongful intent.
The article had been vetted by legal advisers. He was very surprised they allowed the introductory paragraphs to include the factual statement that the "Moscow letter" bore the signatures of Mr De Rossa and Mr Sean Garland.
The defendants had already accepted in court that Mr De Rossa did not sign the letter. The matter of Mr Garland was still an issue in the defence. In his view it was most improper for those statements to appear in the article.
Because of the defendants' action, the court had wasted nine days. Counsel and solicitors had spent considerable time preparing the ease. Preparation would have to be repeated. In his view, it was solely the fault of the defendants.
Mr Justice McCracken said he was tempted to award all costs to date. That might be a little unfair on the defendants. Some of the costs would have been incurred in matters which would be of use at the next hearing. Mr De Rossa must be fully compensated for all other costs.
Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for Mr De Rossa, said he would hope that perhaps it might be possible for an undertaking to be given to prevent any repetition between now and the trial. It would be utterly disastrous to have any repetition.
Mr Justice McCracken said he did not think he could do that. The trial was out of his hands. He refused a stay on the order for costs.