High Court told not to award O’Brien costs in ‘chilling effect’ case

Sara Moorhead SC, for the Dáil, said that Mr O’Brien, a “very wealthy man” seeking to have a “chilling effect” on parliamentary speech should not be given his costs following his case against the clerk of the Dáil as well as the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the State.

Along with the State’s counsel, Ms Moorhead argued against Mr O’Brien’s claim they ought to pay “a portion” of his costs for, among other reasons, the fact his was a constitutional case of importance and “particular novelty” brought in the interests of other citizens and not just Mr O’Brien.

The case came about after Mr O’Brien obtained court injunctions restraining RTÉ from publicising statements made in 2015 by Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy and Sinn Féin TD Pearse Doherty.

Dismissing the case last week, Ms Justice Una Ni Raifeartaigh stated that what Mr O’Brien sought was “very-far-reaching” as well as prohibited by the separation of powers in the Constitution and that it would have a “chilling effect” on parliamentary speech.

The defence’s central argument, that article 15 of the Constitution protects Dáil utterances from suit or court scrutiny was upheld by the judge.

But when the case returned to the judge, Michael Cush SC, for Mr O’Brien, argued that the businessman was entitled to “a portion” of his costs.

The judge indicated she will give her costs ruling on a later date.