Wings Over Scotland blogger ordered to pay legal expenses to Dugdale

Wings Over Scotland blogger Stuart Campbell pictured outside the Sheriff Court in Edinburgh.

Wings Over Scotland's Stuart Campbell lost a £25,000 defamation case against Ms Dugdale earlier this year.

Mr Campbell brought the case after the politician accused him in her Daily Record column of making homophobic remarks.

Now Mr Campbell has branded the court's decision to award full legal costs, plus a 50 per cent 'uplift', to Ms Dugdale as 'incomprehensible'.

He claims on his website that the final bill for the legal costs could be around £100,000. Mr Campbell has previously raised money for his legal case and his website by crowdfunding from supporters.

The court ruling details that the 50 per cent top up on the costs is down, in part, to the 'complexity' of the defamation case as well as the specialised knowledge required by the legal representatives Ms Dugdale employed.

In a post on his blog, Mr Campbell said: "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 the '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 and Mr Campbell was represented by Craig Sandison QC.The defamation hearing was held at Edinburgh's Sheriff Court earlier this year where Sheriff Nigel Ross ruled that while Ms Dugdale was incorrect to imply Mr Campbell was a homophobe, the article was covered by a defence of fair comment.

The case centred on a tweet Bath-based Scottish independence activist Mr Campbell wrote in March 2017.

He wrote that Tory MSP Oliver Mundell, son of Scottish Secretary David Mundell, was "the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner".

David Mundell came out as gay in 2016.

Following the ruling in April, Ms Dugdale said she was 'relieved' to have won the case after two years.

She said: "This is an important judgement for the right to free speech and a healthy press. This ruling clearly demonstrates that every citizen is entitled to make comments as long as they are fair and reflect honestly held views."