JAILED tycoon Owen Oyston is demanding full payment of legal costs from Michael Murrin, the Preston insurance agent and private detective who led a 15-year campaign against Oyston that ended last week when Murrin was found guilty of contempt of court.

Mr Murrin, 45, former owner of the village fish and chip shop at Longridge, married with three children, told the High Court in London last week that he has very little money.

Oyston's long-time tormentor escaped a prison sentence by giving Mr Justice Wright a solemn undertaking not to publish his campaign document 'Statement: The Preston Dock Development, Red Rose Radio and Cable Television', or distribute similar libels about Oyston who is in Wymott Prison serving six years for rape and indecent assault

"Do not think that the undertaking you give is light", the judge told Michael Murrin.

"If you break that undertaking, you will be in contempt twice over. If you do this again, there is no doubt that you will go to prison."

This week, Owen Oyston's solicitor said that the tycoon, thought to be worth over £60 million, will certainly press for full payment of the costs that have been awarded against Mr Murrin.

"Mr Oyston was generous to Mr Murrin in the past", said Mr Price. "On a previous occasion when Mr Murrin had admitted that his allegations were completely untrue, Mr Oyston did not press for damages.

"But Mr Murrin threw that generosity back in Mr Oyston's face. He continued to libel my client. He must now face the consequences."

Mr Murrin, of Goodwood Avenue, Fulwood, Preston, had denied faxing to two freelance reporters a copy of a letter he wrote in 1992 to Det Insp John Robishaw of the Commercial Fraud Squad, Greater Manchester Police. He told the judge the faxes produced in court by the reporters had been faked.

Journalists David Graham, of Blackpool, and Andrew Rosthorn, of Darwen, both gave evidence to the judge who said he had "no hesitation" in believing them.

The judge concluded, "It is clear in my mind that Mr Murrin was obsessed. However, he has given on oath a solemn undertaking concerning the contempts. There are to be no further breaches of the injunction."

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.