The High Court has refused to grant costs to Dana Rosemary Scallon against a television station over a struck-out defamation action related to an interview she gave during the 2011 Presidential election.
In July 2021 Mr Justice Brian O’Moore struck out separate actions in which a sister and a niece of Ms Scallon’s alleged they were defamed in the interview by the 1970 Eurovision song contest winner and former Presidential candidate.
This was over the failure by Susan Stein and her daughter Susan Gorrell to comply with a court order to pay €150,000 security for costs of a defamation action they took against Ms Scallon and TV3 (now Virgin Media) which broadcast the allegedly defamatory interview in October 2011.
Ms Scallon is the sister of Ms Stein and the aunt of Ms Gorrell.
In their actions, both women claimed that while being interviewed on TV3 during the 2011 presidential election campaign, Ms Scallon made statements that meant both women had maliciously made up claims that Ms Gorrell was sexually abused between 1971-81 by her uncle, John Brown, who lived in England. They claimed the allegations of abuse were true.
Ms Gorrell subsequently made a complaint to the English police.
Mr Brown, of Bracknell, Berkshire, who denied all the claims against him, was cleared in July 2014, by a unanimous jury verdict, of charges of indecent assault of two girls aged under 13 and 16 at several locations in Northern Ireland and England in the 1970s and 80s.
Ms Scallon denied defamation and denied all the claims against her.
In 2014, both women settled their defamation actions against TV3 on terms including a public apology and an undisclosed payment. That settlement was made without the consent of Ms Scallon who continued to defend the proceedings, her lawyers argued.
Ms Scallon later obtained a court order that the two plaintiffs should provide security for the costs should they lose in the remaining proceedings against her.
When they failed to do so Mr Justice O’Moore struck out the cases in 2021.
Subsequently, Ms Scallon asked the court to join TV3 as a third party to these actions so it could be directed to make a contribution to indemnify her costs, or alternatively an order that TV3 pay Ms Scallon’s costs in these actions.
Ms Scallon argued TV3 was still a party to the case even though proceedings against it had been struck out. TV3 strongly disputed this and opposed her application on all grounds.
Dismissing her application, Mr Justice O’Moore said the arguments on behalf of Ms Scallon in relation to seeking a contribution/indemnity made no sense and were flawed or unreal.
He said her application to join TV3 as a third party also failed on the basis she had “delayed hugely” in seeking such an order.
Her claim for costs also had to be refused, under the court rules, as TV3 is currently neither a defendant nor a third party to the claims, he said.
Ms Scallon’s lawyers had raised the possibility that separate proceedings may well be launched against TV3 should the current applications fail.
The judge said it would be inappropriate for him to express any views on the rights and wrongs of her contention that the broadcaster should cover the costs incurred by her in successfully defending the defamation cases taken by her relatives.
The judge said that as soon as he made his order striking out the proceedings against Ms Scallon in July 2021, “the two cases were in essence at an end”.
While the question of Ms Scallon’s costs as against Ms Stein and Ms Gorrell may have been left in abeyance, otherwise the proceedings were spent.
Ms Scallon’s position was “so unusual” that she was now seeking to join TV3 to actions which she herself has caused to be brought to an end, he said.
He had not decided these applications on that basis but it was “a sign of the lack of coherence of her legal position that one could even consider deciding these applications on this very basic point.”
The motions brought by Ms Scallon were fundamentally misconceived and he dismissed them.