A RETIRED Scottish academic last night claimed victory in his

five-year crusade against the manufacturers of the world's best-selling

sleeping pill, Halcion.

Professor Ian Oswald, emeritus professor of psychiatry at Edinburgh

University, was awarded #50,000 from the US firm, Upjohn, for the damage

it caused to his reputation, but was also told by the High Court in

London to pay #25,000 in counter libel damages to the company.

In the same ruling, the BBC was ordered to pay #60,000 in damages to

Upjohn, and now faces a legal bill estimated at #1.5m. The corporation

was last night considering an appeal against the judgment, made in

respect of a 1991 Panorama programme, The Halcion Nightmare.

Professor Oswald, whose legal costs of up to #2m will be paid by the

Medical Defence Union, could eventually be out of pocket by a net

#50,000, since the court found he should also pay #75,000 damages to an

Upjohn executive, Dr Royston Drucker, whom he accused of lying to the US

Food and Drug Administration.

However, his solicitor, Mr David Hooper, said last night that it was

hoped the BBC would meet this bill, because it related to a programme

(Panorama) in which his client had been only a contributor.

He added: ''The real issue is between Upjohn and Professor Oswald and

in that he has been successful. He was awarded twice what Upjohn was

awarded against him. His reputation has been vindicated.''

Outside the court, the professor said: ''I am glad these proceedings

are over. They should never have been brought.''

He chose to retire in 1989, when he was 60, to devote his time to

studying Upjohn's secret documents. Before that, he had spent 30 years

researching drugs, including a decade studying Halcion.

The High Court case centred on a drug which was banned in the UK three

years ago, after the Department of Health ruled that its potential

side-effects outweighed the benefits it could bring to patients.

Critics of Halcion say it can cause depression, anxiety, short-term

memory loss and violent behaviour. Upjohn insists that it is safe when

taken as directed.

In yesterday's 295-page ruling, the Judge, Sir Anthony May, said the

BBC and Professor Oswald were wrong to accuse Upjohn of deliberately

misleading regulatory bodies about possible side-effects of the drug.

''The seriousness of the libels ... is ... obvious and great,'' he said.

But while the company's reports on Halcion ''were not made

intentionally and dishonestly'', they did include serious errors, so the

amount of damages would be lowered, said the Judge.

He accepted that the company had suffered in reputation, but the

amount of damages awarded to the company against Professor Oswald was

affected by the ''tiny'' extent of the publication of his views within

the UK, through an article in the New York Times.

An equivalent claim against the newspaper in the US would not have

been viable under American law.

However, the extent of the publication by the BBC, on a Panorama

watched by almost four million viewers, was wide.

In finding that Upjohn had defamed Mr Oswald in its press releases,

the Judge said that for it to accuse him ''of being biased for improper

motive was reckless''.

He added: ''It was a personal attack, not a scientific defence (of

Halcion). Upjohn knew perfectly well that the case that he was making

was one which had to be considered seriously.''

The seriousness of the libel spoke for itself. It had called into

question his professional and academic integrity upon a subject which

was of central importance to the career in which he made his reputation,

and there was substantial circulation of the company's comments in the

Scotsman, which the Judge described as ''Edinburgh's daily newspaper''.

After the verdict, Mr Ley Smith, president and chief operating officer

of Upjohn, said: ''We are very pleased with the verdict. It's a

vindication for the company and its employees.''