Mr Ian Bailey has been ordered to pay the legal costs of five of the seven newspapers he sued for libel last December.
He was awarded half his costs against the two which were found to have libelled him on one issue. But Judge Patrick Moran granted the newspapers only three-fifths of their costs on the basis that there was duplication of some of the solicitors' work.
However, Mr Bailey still faces a bill of up to €300,000.
Judge Moran yesterday granted an application to counsel for the five newspapers to appoint a receiver for the €8,000 Mr Bailey had been awarded in damages against the Irish Sun and the Irish Mirror for saying he had been violent towards his former wife.
In his judgment last month Judge Moran found that the newspapers had not brought forward evidence to support this, although he found that they, and the other newspapers, had been justified in stating Mr Bailey was a violent man and was a suspect in the investigation into the murder of Ms Sophie Toscan du Plantier. The effect of the appointment of a receiver will be that Mr Bailey will not be able to claim the damages, and they can be sought as a contribution towards the costs he owes.
When the costs hearing opened yesterday Mr Paul Gallagher SC, for the newspapers, said the defendants had been perfectly justified in saying that Mr Bailey was a very violent man.
He said the Irish Mirror and the Irish Sun were justified in seeking their costs on the basis that they had justified the main thrust of their allegations.
He said he should also be denied his costs because of the manner in which he had conducted himself during the case.
He had said that Ms Mairead Farrell had been pressed by gardaí to make false statements against him, and she was on her way to withdraw them. Then the court heard the harrowing evidence of Ms Farrell that she had been subjected to threats, up to the weekend before she gave evidence. The court had rejected Mr Bailey's evidence here.
"Here was evidence given that was false and given to sustain a claim for very substantial damages. This is a very important issue. There is an element of public interest here, that persons who present false evidence, who interfere with witnesses, should not get their costs. Mr Bailey's presence at Cealfada bridge was a crucial issue in the case," Mr Gallagher said.
He drew Judge Moran's attention to a Supreme Court ruling that those who gave false evidence in seeking damages should be penalised when it came to costs.
He said there was no justification for Mr Bailey getting his costs in relation to the entire case against the two newspapers. "He won on an issue that would have taken less than a day," he said.
In his ruling Judge Moran pointed out that in general "the costs follow the event", leading to the granting of costs to the five successful newspapers.
"But I have to have regard to the Supreme Court judgment on the behaviour of the plaintiff during the trial. Some of his evidence was intended to mislead, in relation to Ms Farrell, the Shelleys, Mr Johnston and Mr Kelly. The plaintiff is entitled to half his costs in the cases he was successful in."