A PRO-INDEPENDENCE blogger has hit out at the "incomprehensible" costs awarded to former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale in a failed defamation case.
The Wings over Scotland blogger Stuart Campbell said he now faces a bill of some £100,000 - but that heis considering an appeal against the defamation verdict which, if successful, would automatically quash the expenses liability.
In April, Mr Campbell lost a a £25,000 defamation case against Ms Dugdale after she accused him of making homophobic remarks, despite a judge ruling her comments were incorrect.
Now Mr Campbell, who lives in Bath in Somerset, has expressed dismay after a sheriff awarded Ms Dugdale full costs, plus 50 per cent.
It will fall to Mr Campbell, as the losing party, to cover these.
Writing in his blog tonight Mr Campbell said he expects the cost "to be in the rough vicinity of £100,000".
Ms Dugdale's legal bills had originally been covered by the Labour Party, but it pulled the plug in September 2018 - before the case had even reached a full hearing.
The Daily Record subsequently stepped in to fund the case, as the row stemmed from Ms Dugdale's column with the newspaper.
READ MORE: 'Wings over Scotland case left me heartbroken'
Mr Campbell wrote: "We've just received the verdict in the hearing over costs in our court case against Kezia Dugdale, and it's an incomprehensible one.
"The sheriff has awarded costs in full to Dugdale, plus a 50% 'uplift' mainly on the grounds of 'complexity' of the case, despite Dugdale having employed the services of perhaps Scotland's highest-paid specialist defamation QC."
Ms Dugdale was represented by Roddy Dunlop QC, while Mr Campbell was represented by Craig Sandison QC.
Ms Dugdale said she did not want to comment on the decision, except to thank the Daily Record "for standing by me".
She added that she was "delighted that's rewarded with them getting all their money back".
READ MORE: Wings over Scotland blogger 'horrified' by homophobic claim
Mr Campbell insisted that the case was "in fact a quite straightforward one" in terms of defamation law, and that the Sheriff had given "no explanation" of the complexities involved.
Mr Campbell said an "overwhelming majority" of the Wings over Scotland readers who had responded to a poll were in favour of him appealing against the defamation verdict.
The Wings over Scotland blog is paid for through crowdfunding, raising more than £150,000 annually.
The three-day hearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in March resulted in a ruling by Sheriff Nigel Ross in April that while Ms Dugdale had been incorrect to imply Mr Campbell was a homophobe in her Daily Record column, the article was covered by the defence of fair comment.
As a result, Mr Campbell's claim for damages was thrown out.
The verdict states that Ms Dugdale is entitled to full costs plus an additional 50% according to laws outlining the fee provisions for solicitors, which cover various factors.
These include the "complexity of the cause, and the number, difficulty or novelty of the question raised"; the "skill, time, and labour, and specialised knowledge required, of the solicitor"; and "the importance of the cause or the subject-matter of it to the client".
The defamation row centred on a tweet Mr Campbell, 51, sent in March 2017.
He wrote that the Scottish Secretary David Mundell’s son, the Tory MSP Oliver Mundell, was “the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner".
READ MORE: Wings over Scotland judgement reveals all you need to know about where Scottish politics goes next
David Mundell came out as gay in 2016 and has described it as “one of the most difficult things” he has ever done.
Writing in her Daily Record column a few days later, Ms Dugdale said she was “shocked and appalled to see a pro-independence blogger's homophobic tweets”, and accused Wings Over Scotland of spouting "hatred and homophobia towards others".
Mr Campbell denied he is homophobic and insisted her comments were defamatory.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel