11.23.06
Hee hee
From ireland.com.
O’Brien wins record damages in libel case
The highest award ever recorded in the history of libel cases in Ireland has been given to businessman Denis O’Brien after he won damages of €750,000 in his case against the Mirror Group of Newspapers over articles published in the Irish Mirrorin 1998.
The articles, published over three pages, alleged Mr O’Brien had paid £30,000 to Ray Burke for the purpose of securing a licence to broadcast for the 98FM radio station. The Mirror had admitted the article in question was untrue and defamatory of Mr O’Brien and the case was before the court only to assess the amount of damages to be paid.
However, Mr O’Brien had previously been awarded a sum of €250,000 over the case but the award had been overturned by the Supreme Court which found that amount to be “disproportionately high”. Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne ordered immediate payment of the €250,000 but put a stay on the rest of the award, pending a possible appeal. Mr O’Brien had taken his case against the Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd, the then editor in chief of the Daily Mirror, Piers Morgan and the then editior of the Irish Mirror Neil Leslie arising from an article published on June 10th, 1998.
John of Dublin said,
November 23, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Wow, ain’t that something! Hats off to him. I hope nothing weird and contradictory comes out in future years and he ends up in jail like poor old Jeffrey Archer!
Tom said,
November 24, 2006 at 10:30 am
I don’t understand – why wasn’t the case taken in the portugese courts? As ever with Mr. O’Brien, he’s Irish when it suits.
Ronan said,
November 24, 2006 at 11:02 am
Well back to the Supreme Court again so. They said that IR£250,000.00 was too much the last time, will the new judges have changed their mind? No doubt the newspapers will blame the lawyers but maybe a sorry would have prevented all of this?
fmk said,
November 24, 2006 at 11:08 am
I wonder if his next libel target might be the commentor on this blog who called O’Brien a cunt and a crook. I hope that commentor has sufficient evidence to support these accusations
As for why sue in Ireland and not Portugal – it was the Irish Mirror, which is published in this jurisdiction. Despite his non-residence for tax purposes, O’Brien does maintain a rather nice residence on Raglan Road, in which he can occassionally be found. He has as much (if mot more) of a reputation to defend in this jurisdiction as he does in Portugal, and I think you might be hard pressed to argue that an accusation published in an Irish newspaper had much impact on his reputation in a country that paper is not distributed in. (And atleast he didn’t follow the lead set by the Channel Island residing Barclay brother who sued the Sunday Times in the French courts – now *that’s* jurisdiction shopping.)
Mol said,
November 24, 2006 at 11:16 am
Ronan
I think this time he was infront of a jury, not a judge, and that they awarded this amount. As I say I think this is what happened.
Mol
Leon said,
November 24, 2006 at 11:32 am
Tom Farrell had an extraordinary and moving post that might shed some light on the matter. He really is one of the most incisive minds working today.
http://oldrottenhat.typepad.com/oldrottenhat/2006/11/did_morph_and_c.html#comments
Leon said,
November 24, 2006 at 11:35 am
Actually FMK the appropriate person to sue would be Sarah wrt this blog.
fmk said,
November 24, 2006 at 11:43 am
leon – if the recent us case is to be believed, sarah is safe and the fault lies with the person who actually made the allegations. and i’m safe in quoting them too.
John of Dublin said,
November 24, 2006 at 11:59 am
Well it seems the article was in the Irish Mirror – hence I assume Irish courts.
As for his Irish tax avoidence etc. in Portugal, it’s all perfectly legal as I understand it. He generated considerable income tax revenue for the Irish State with all the employment he created in Ireland, including I assume his own income tax when he built up Esat and 98FM etc, in Ireland, not to mention license fes. He nurtured many skilled people who went on to create further ventures and employment and income tax. So he uses tax rules to now suit his own wealth which he built up. So what? We would all do that given half a chance. It’s not illegal. There are not many in Ireland who had the balls and took the risks like O’Brien did. Any study of his business rise is breathtaking. Now he’s playing on the World stage in business. Why do we have to keep insisting he remains in Ireland?
Even if O’Brien did court politicians at least creatively, it still hasn’t been proved he did anything wrong. In the business he was attempting to get going it was important that he at least won Government understanding, moral support and maximum fair handling. I’m prepared to be openminded on whether or not O’Brien may or may not have stretched to the edges of dodgy practise or even beyond, but I do know that you gotta fight hard to get what you want at that level of new business. If you push politicians to help and they comply in ways they shouldn’t in their job brief then it’s not always necessarily the entrepreneur’s fault. I think there has always existed in any Government a natural propensity to help indigenous ventures succeed. But we all draw the line if any bribery is proved to be involved. I’m prepared to assume his innocence and good name until ever proved otherwise.
Anyway, sorry for rabbiting on, I guess this was all covered already in Sarah’s earlier blog.
Leon said,
November 24, 2006 at 12:01 pm
fmk libel law in the US and Ireland is completely different. There is an impending case regarding comments about events at the Oxygen festival which will clarify the law in this regard.
I believe the post by Tom Farrell has much to teach us in this regard. Tom is a true sage.
Leon said,
November 24, 2006 at 12:14 pm
John, The nature of Mr O’Brien’s risk taking is still before the courts.
To the extent that paying taxes is voluntary we all minimise our tax exposure.
As regards the awarding of the mobile phone license Mr O’Brien simply dealt with the world as it was, if he wanted to win the license for ESAT he had to contribute to Fine Gael; the fact that the process that gave rise to the licenses has been described as problematic and further that the national asset involved (mobile phone license) was sold quite cheaply is something for which one should objectively congratulate Mr O’Brien.
There is a belief among the cahttering classes that Fianna Fail are in some sense more corrupt than Fine Gael or Labour, thankfully we have Mr O’Brien to remind us that this is not the case. The next time you hear Enda and Pat wittering about corrupt FF remember they were in power when Mr O’Brien got his lmobile phone license for 70 million pounds less than the highest bidder. (if memory serves, it may not)
fmk said,
November 24, 2006 at 12:38 pm
leon – there really isn’t a lot of irish internet case law, partic in regard to blogs, which is why we tend to look to decisions made in other courts in an effort to obtain guidance on the likely outcome of a case in this country. what little irish case law there is does seem to have followed international precedents. the recent us decision does seem quite logical, in terms of putting the responsibility on the person who made the comments, and personally i’d be willing to bet money that a similar judgement would be reached in ths jurisdiction.
also, it’s worth noting that this blog appears to be hosted in the us (as far as i can tell, sarah is using dreamhost).
gerry said,
November 24, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Well I certainly hope that Tom, who called Denis O’Brien a crook and a cunt, will have his day in court with the litigous Mr O’Brien so that he can expose to the world the evidence that he has to back up the claims. And I am sure that Tom would welcome that also. No doubt Sarah is in regular contact and could perhaps alert Mr O’brien or his solicitors to the challenge.
I think it’s great that Mr O’Brien has won E750,000 for tackling a newspaper that printed what everyone else thinks. Bribe Ray Burke? The very thought. And i look forward to finding out which lucky charitable cause will receive a portion of Mr O’Brien’s largesse.
Think of a world without 98FM or O2 inthe Irish marketplace or Wanderers not taking their noble cause forward in blocking the redevelopment of Lansdowne Road. If I knew how I would send the guy money ex gratia. He deserves everything he gets.
Conor Lenihan said,
November 24, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Oscar Wilde
Jonathan Aitken
Jeffrey Archer
David Irving
In the middle of a tribunal to discover whether his riches were honestly earned or not, this has to be a high risk strategy. Certainly higher risk than obtaining government licences far below cost, while coincidentally donating money to said government, operating the licences for a couple of years and selling them on for up to 100 times what you paid for them.
Sarah, in the hypothetical situation where DOB was found to have done something naughty, Haughey-style, and then got banged up for mendacious litigation, would you still be praising him as a great guy in the way that CJ had his die-hards?
I think you would. Love is blind.
Sarah said,
November 24, 2006 at 1:20 pm
what fun.
Remember, the Mirror admitted they were just plain wrong. Their story was not about the mobile licence but about Ray Burke and the 98FM licence.Standby for column on Sunday. I think the libellers on this site are safe. He’s in a good mood these days
Leon said,
November 24, 2006 at 1:29 pm
The Tom who called Mr O’Brien a crook and a cunt is not necessarily the thinker to whom I linked earlier. That Tom is probably the most whimsical commentator on Irish affairs writing today.
Further the use of the word ‘cunt’ marks the posting out as mere vulgar abuse.
fmk as I informed you Ticketmaster have brought a libel case against one of the Irish websites; so your claim that Sarah is safe is fairly optimistic.
Conor Lenihan said,
November 24, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Please don’t let yourself down with a creepy lovesong to Denis. The fucker has done nothing for you and the whole spectacle is demeaning.
John of Dublin said,
November 24, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Ha, ha, Conor – well written and thought provoking re. the libel award! It echoes my original comment. O’Brien is either the quintessential risk taker and/or he knows he is right. But the point is he is currently innocent. There is nothing wrong with us taking an ultimately different view if his innocence is proved to be wrong. That’s what law and morality should be all about.
And BTW – selling the business to BT for huge profit is irrelevant, they were willing to pay it. Profit seems to be still a dirty word with many people.
fmk said,
November 24, 2006 at 1:40 pm
leon – when the boards.ie decision is delivered, perhaps we can then take this conversation further. but do note a major difference between the comments posted here and the comments on boards.ie. o’brien has not contacted sarah to request the offensive comment be removed. ticketmaster did contact boards.ie. how boards.ie responded to that contact will be important in deciding their liability (this is a fundamental of internet case law, in all jurisdictions). until the boards.ie decision, lets leave this to all the o’brien haters to vent their … frustrations.
fmk said,
November 24, 2006 at 1:43 pm
wrt the difference in price between what o’brien paid the government for the licence and what bt paid him for the company. doesn’t anyone understand accountancy? o’brien invested a lot of money into the company, adding value along the way. bt didn’t just buy the licence, they bought a business. and said business is more than a mere licence.
John of Dublin said,
November 24, 2006 at 1:48 pm
I agree fmk, I’m glad you expanded my own brief comment re. selling the business.
Leon said,
November 24, 2006 at 2:19 pm
John and fmk you are the only people mentioning the profit in selling the business.
He managed to acquire the license for rather less than other people were offering.
I don’t admire Mr O’Brien, surely his billion euro should be enough reward for him; as I say he dealt with the world as it was presented to him and if other organisations were stupid enough NOT to give money to FG while the license application was being reviewed thet is their look out.
The process of the awarding of the private mobile license does make it clear that a Fine Gael Labour coalition is not necessarily more ‘honest’ (which is not to say that Mr O’Brien is dishonest) than a Fianna Fail based government. As the pool of talent in these organisations is smaller than in Fianna Fail they will necessarily produce a more inept government.
Conor Lenihan said,
November 24, 2006 at 2:56 pm
The GSM licence was awarded to OBrien for a fraction of its market value (he paid less than euro 20m). The next day, before he ‘added any value’, it would have been worth a large multiple of this amount, certainly in the hundreds of millions.
The same process occurred with the radio licences.
Conor Lenihan said,
November 24, 2006 at 3:17 pm
The cynical attitude is that when something valuable like a licence is sold off without an auction, a shadow auction takes place. As Sarah said, all the bidders realised late in the day that they should attend Fine Gael charity lunches. Maybe Denis had a bigger appetite for lunch. Or maybe the other bidders forgot to buy Michael Lowry some property in the UK.
Whatever way you look at it I think we can all agree that Denis is a very shrewd attractive man and an example of entrepreneurship that we should all follow. Is that any help to you for your next article Sarah?
fmk said,
November 24, 2006 at 4:35 pm
wrt the “value” of the licence. this is disputable (as all numbers are in accountancy). more importantly though is this – price was never the determinant factor. whether the company could actually deliver its plans was a part of the rating process, and if you know anything about how o’brien pulled his backers together for the licence bid, you would know this.
if you want to sell the licence for the max value and forget all other factors, then the manner in which the uk auctioned the 3g licences is the one that should have been used. alas, that has been rather discredited, for though the government got the most money they could have, the consumer has not actually received an awful lot, and will probably be paying through the nose for what they do receive for quite some time to come.
John of Dublin said,
November 24, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Who ever said O’Brien was “attractive” and “an example”? I’d say he was a tough bastard, but those are often the winners in the business world. Phrases like “nice guys finish second” and “don’t do as I do, do as I say” come to mind. Think Alan Sugar, Michael O’Leary and countless others. I’m just saying I admire his success in a tough game.
If he did anything very wrong to get there, it’s a different matter, but we don’t know that.
And I again agree with fmk re. the license evaluation not necessarily being totally price based – same with any complex tendering for a big project of public interest.
gerry said,
November 24, 2006 at 5:56 pm
well the 3G sale is instrucutive. The numbers involved in that were astronomical yet there has been no whiff of impropiety surrounding it. why, because it was a bid, masterfully handled by the outsourced bid handlers. There were no lunches to be bought or golf classics to chip into in order to get the minister’s ear and the various other gombeen shennanigans that surrounded the mobile license bid and to which Sarah has given us an insight.
As to the people not getting much, the Exchequer extracted a massive windfall, effectively a massive transfer of wealth from private companies which could be used for the public good without directly taxing the people. In the billions! And people will get their 3G networks eventually. If it costs too much they won’t use them – you’re the libetarian economist here FMK, work it out. and I am not aware of any individual involved in the acquiring of a 3G license walking awy with STG300M quid.
O’Brien deserves credit, sure, for playing the playing the game well but it was dirty game to being with as it always is when there is personal influence that can be brought to bear in this great little country of ours.
John of Dublin said,
November 24, 2006 at 6:38 pm
It’s gas how we’ve all annexed this blog. Only one comment from Sarah in the 28 entries. Throws us a tidbit and we’re in like wolves! She’s busy preparing a gem for Sunday no doubt!
Sarah said,
November 24, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Life is great really. I worked for the morning on my love poem to Denis and then went out to get the hair done because I am being interviewed for a documentary on Monday. The hair was SERIOUSLY bad. I come home, check that my boys are fed and dressed for bed and then check up on my other boys. And what entertainment you have left for me!
Let’s see, well the column will address the whole issue of the value of the licence so I won’t bother going into that.
BT bought market share, not just a licence. Remember they bought Esat Telecom, which had a 45%? share in Esat Digifone. Anyone who thinks building a fixed line business in Ireland is easy should take a look at how Smart fared. That business cost millions to build. And remember that BT bought at the top of the telecoms bubble.Eircom sold at the bottom and lost us all money. But for some reason that little fuck up doesn’t attract the same bitterness as the guy who was smart enough to sell at the right time. If suckered BT into paying far more for the company that it was worth (which he did) why don’t you say well done? Why do you say “sure anyone could’ve done that”. They couldn’t.
Conor has raised one interesting point. A lot of people DO say to me, “He has done nothing for you. You are stupid to defend him.” I say, he gave me a job. They say, he worked you into the ground. I suppose I look at it a few ways.
He DID give me a job. A really good one. In 1994 when NO ONE was offering jobs. He went onto create hundred and hundreds of other jobs in Ireland. Before he got the mobile licence he was taking huge risks borrowing money to build up the companies. The people I worked with were fantastic. It seemed most unjust to have the work that those people did thrashed in the press by rumours and allegations and the heap of rubbish some of you seem to think are facts. And yes, I felt sorry for him. Ultimately, I think if I was ever in trouble, he’s the type of guy I could call for help and it would be given. That list of people is short. He’s a friend. Of course I am going to defend him.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
November 25, 2006 at 2:59 am
I don’t know why you are laughing Sarah. Until we get a proper system to cut out lies in the media, scum like the English tabloids will always go around falsely accusing people to sell papers.
JC Skinner said,
November 25, 2006 at 4:42 pm
He got three quarters of a mill? Jesus wept.
A shiny penny like Albert Reynolds received would have been too much.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
November 25, 2006 at 5:21 pm
My above comment was inapporpiate. I would laugh as well if a friend of mine successfully sued a trashy tabloid- especially for three quarters of a million.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
November 26, 2006 at 2:01 am
Tá brón orm mar gheall ar sin.
Sarah said,
November 26, 2006 at 1:38 pm
that’s ok Darren.
fmk said,
November 27, 2006 at 12:44 pm
“the libetarian economist here FMK” – i’ve been accused of many things in my life, but that one really is below the belt
fmk said,
November 27, 2006 at 3:04 pm
gerry – to actually respond to your praise for the auction system, now that i’ve had time to get some work done this morning.
yes, people will get 3g eventually – as we could all get a fixed line, eventualy, back in the good old days of the department of posts and telegraphs. however, the auction process was meant to get the telecom companies into the market quickly. in this regard, the process has failed. we’re six years on and 3g is barely here. this failure has a substantial cost to the exchequer, in terms of tax revenues forgone – so the amount trousered by the uk exchequer in 2000 needs to take into account the tax revenues lost in subsequent years.
in terms of the price – £560 per mobile telephone in use in the uk in 2000 – being passed on to the consumer, you’re right, if the 3g service costs too much, the consumer won’t pay for it. as evidences by the take up of what few 3g services currntly available.
however, the billions paid for the licenses are not just recoverable from 3g services. the are recoverable from all services provided by the telecoms companies – fixed line, mobile and roaming (they are also recoverable via hardware costs. the national audit office in the uk, in its report on the auction process, pointed this very fact out). in effect, you have all consumers subsidising the licence cost, not just 3g consumers. not really a transfer of wealth from evil corporations to the exchequer when you look at it like that, now is it? more like a transfer of wealth from consumers to the exchequer, via the evil corporations.
there is also the point that there was already an incumbent operator who, as sarah has pointed out, would have to match the price paid by the new operator: an auction in these circumstances could have been an interesting way to bankrupt not just the successful bidder, but the incumbent operator too. now that hardly seems equitable, does it? or sensible. not if you’re thinking the long terms benefits to the exchequer. but of course, you’re not thinking long terms. ypu’re only looking at the short term gain.