Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I fully accept the logic of what the Minister said. If a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, it cannot be referred back to the High Court interminably until a decision is reached with which the parties are satisfied. That would be a bad use of court time and is neither in the interests of the defendant nor the plaintiff.

I still have great difficulty in accepting the outcome of some cases. In the context of a plaintiff who is awarded €500,000 in damages in the High Court, even if it has been established he or she has been defamed, if the case is referred to the Supreme Court on the grounds of the award being excessive and it, in its wisdom decides the plaintiff should get only €100,000, he or she may well have to pay the cost of taking the case in the Supreme Court, which could amount to €400,000 or €500,000. We should guard against circumstances where even when it has been proven a person has been defamed, he or she may emerge in a negative financial position. I do not know if we can intervene by preventing people appealing, but is it possible to prevent this occurring if a High Court judge gives a direction as to what the parameters should be and the award falls within them?