The novelist and commentator, John Waters, has been deemed guilty of slandering esteemed reporter Kitty Holland over the premature death of Savita Halappanavar, and is directed to cover Holland’s complete legal fees, anticipated to exceed €150,000.
Judge John O’Connor in the Circuit Civil Court followed a five-day litigation featuring top-tier counsel Andrew Walker, barrister Shane English, and Ciaron Leavy from Lavelle Partners Solicitors, by compelling him to compensate Holland €35,000 for character defamation.
Specifically to address the outstanding legal fees, during a postponed session, Mr Walker communicated to the court that his client merited her costs after the court’s verdict in her favour.
Mr Walker relayed that Waters had signalled ahead of the proceedings stating his intention to call upon 11 witnesses to vouch for him, but in reality, did not call upon any witnesses and built his defence based on a 100-page letter of defence and his own testimony.
Mr Walker noted Waters had dispatched a 100-page letter to Holland’s legal team unequivocally stating he wouldn’t settle the case and was determined to contest it.
Judge O’Connor, post a request on Waters’ behalf refusing any cost ruling, opined he found no basis to deviate from the normative rule that “costs follow the event” and highlighted that he firmly believed the plaintiff deserved complete reimbursement for the costs incurred.
Earlier, Judge O’Connor had ruled that the defamation constituted a malicious assault on Ms Holland’s journalistic credibility causing her significant distress.
“Thankfully, her reputation as a journalist wasn’t adversely affected,” affirmed Judge O’Connor. “Her high standing among her journalistic colleagues reaffirms her accolades, a sentiment this court echoes today.”
He observed that Waters’ unfounded defamation of Ms Holland had proven irresponsible and heedless, as it put her reputation at risk to assert a political agenda.
Judge O’Connor awarded a €35,000 defamation settlement against Waters, a sum equalling exactly half the maximum award he could have imposed. The judge acknowledged Waters’ decision to remove his speech from the Renua website, though no apology or clarification had followed. The defamation case was brought by Holland, Waters’ former colleague, who alleged that Waters greatly harmed her reputation as a journalist.
Holland, a 53-year-old residing in Ranelagh, Dublin, revealed the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar in Galway University Hospital 12 years prior. Holland accused Waters of indirectly suggesting in a speech to a political party that she had falsified in her report, leading to accusations of dishonesty, incompetence, and unfitness for journalistic responsibility.
Waters, a committed pro-lifer residing in Sandycove, Dublin, denied the allegations. He defended against Holland’s claims in court, asserting that he did not defame her or label her a liar and announcing he had no involvement in the online publication of his speech by the political party.
Holland informed the court that upon receiving a lead regarding Ms Halappanavar’s premature death, she thoroughly researched and vetted the matter for three days with assistance from editors and lawyers before publication. Her report attested that Ms Halappanavar had been denied a termination as her unborn child still had a heartbeat and due to Ireland being ‘a Catholic country’.