Tribune receiver must provide security of costs in action against IMOS over newspaper cover

THE receiver to the Sunday Tribune must provide security of costs in his legal action over the publication by the Irish Mail On Sunday (IMOS) of an alleged fake copy of the Tribune just days after the paper went into receivership, a judge ruled yesterday.

Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan said while it had been accepted receiver Jim Luby would not be able to pay the costs of the Commercial Court proceedings, he had been appointed to pursue the action by a division of Independent News and Media (INM), which was a significant commercial operation.

She was therefore making an order that Mr Luby provide security of costs and she adjourned fixing what they should be set at to April 4. She suggested the parties could come to some agreement on the matter before then.

Mr Luby has brought proceedings against Associated Newspapers, publishers of the IMOS, seeking damages for the “passing off” of the Sunday Tribune title on February 6 last when it published 26,000 issues of the IMOS with a wrap-round cover carrying a Tribune-style logo, 10,000 of which were sold. Mr Luby also claims injurious falsehood and interference with the economic interests of the Tribune.

IMOS denies the claims.

Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan ruled the receiver had established a prima facie case but it could not be considered an unanswerable claim as defined by previous case law. There were issues between the parties but they have to be decided at the main trial of the proceedings, she said.

The judge heard from counsel for Mr Luby that security for costs should not be granted because of the alleged intimidatory manner of IMOS since the proceedings were issued, including that legal costs would be €700,000 plus VAT.

She said the costs were exaggerated and while the court was not determining the amount, in her view the alleged conduct of the IMOS did not amount to special circumstances whereby a security of costs order should not be granted. She said the court was not determining any “ethical issues on the marketing approach of the defendant”.