MR ALBERT REYNOLDS may not have to pay an extra £200,000 after a London judge's ruling yesterday that he was not liable for all of the Sunday Times's legal costs following his libel victory.
In a five minute judgment, Mr Justice French ruled against the newspaper's defence of qualified privilege, saying the law was "unclear" on the issue and lie was "wary" of acting as a judicial legislator.
"The law is yet unclear, and to hold in favour of the Sunday Times would be to widen the boundaries of qualified privilege, and there is no clear guidance in favour of doing that", he said.
As a result of this ruling Mr Justice French's earlier provisional order that "in justice and in fairness" Mr Reynolds should only pay the Sunday Times's legal costs from the date he rejected its £5,005 offer will come into effect. His legal bill is now estimated to be £800,000.
Following the ruling, Ms Catherine Rimmell, solicitor for the Sunday Times, said the newspaper would appeal against both decisions and was prepared to go to the European Court of Human Rights.
Although Mr Reynolds successfully sued the Sunday Times over accusations that he was a liar the jury decided by a majority of 10-1 that he should receive "zero damages". Under English law, Mr Reynolds is liable for the paper's legal costs because the jury awarded him less than the Sunday Times's settlement offer.
Ms Pamela Cassidy, solicitor for Mr Reynolds, welcomed Mr Justice French's judgment, but said it would have been perverse" if he had ruled against the former Taoiseach, because it was an "unprecedented case".
After saying that Mr Reynolds's barristers were still studying Mr Justice French's summing up during the libel case for grounds to appeal, she added: "The 28 day period to lodge notice to appeal begins today, following this judgement, so any decision will be announced before Christmas."
Citing Mr Reynolds's libel case as a "classic example" for extending qualified privilege to newspapers, Lord Lester of Rerne Hill QC, for the Sunday Times, argued that the issue was a matter of press freedom and free speech.
The newspaper was able to launch this test case following the jury's unanimous decision that the article had correctly reported the reasons stated in the Dail by the Tanaiste, Mr Spring, for leaving the government.
Lord Lester argued this decision proved the newspaper was justified in printing the article.
After listening to two days of legal argument last week on qualified privilege, Mr Justice French reserved his judgment, but said he would "definitely not" be announcing his decision yesterday.
However, his change of mind resulted in Lord Lester missing his judgment.
Mr Reynolds said last night that he was happy with yesterday's decision, but added: "There is still a distance to travel to rectify the unjust situation."