Trials
MCPHILEMY v THE SUNDAY TIMES
£145,000
A claim in respect of an article about a film produced by the Claimant
which alleged that there was a conspiracy to murder suspected Republicans
in Northern Ireland, involving a group of Loyalist terrorists, Protestant
businessmen and members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Claimant
contended that the article suggested that he had made the film knowing
that there was no such conspiracy. Justification pleaded.
MARCO-PIERRE WHITE v NEW YORK TIMES
£75,000
The well-known chef sued over a profile published in the New York Times
and the International Herald Tribune, which was broadly favourable, but
included an allegation that he had had a "well-publicised bout with
drugs and alcohol". The journalist had misinterpreted an arguably
ambiguous extract from the Claimant's autobiography. Justification pleaded
and abandoned. The judge refused permission to plead consent and contributory
negligence. Indemnity costs awarded.
IRVING V LIPSTADT AND PENGUIN BOOKS
Lost
Claim against Penguin Books and academic Deborah Lipstadt over a book
'Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory', which
accused Irving of being a holocaust denier who had manipulated history
to further his own racist and political ends. Trial by Gray J. without
a jury. Justification pleaded and accepted notwithstanding non-material
errors in the book.
Legal
cases of interest
JUPITER UNIT TRUST MANAGERS LTD v JOHNSON FRY ASSET MANAGERS PLC
The Claimant and the Defendant were well-known fund managers involved
in the sale of ISAs. The Defendant had published advertisements seeking
to persuade the public to invest in their ISA in preference to other fund
managers including the Claimant. In a trial of preliminary issues, the
Court decided that the claim in libel against the Defendant had no real
prospect of success and would be struck out as no reasonable fair-minded
reader of the advertisement could come to the conclusion that it contained
any meaning defamatory of the Claimant. The claim in malicious falsehood
was also struck out as the Defendant had not overstepped the permissible
range of denigration or disparagement of the Claimant's products. In any
event, the Court held that there was a binding compromise agreement between
the parties.
(1) SIR ELTON HERCULES JOHN (2) HAPPENSTANCE LTD (3) WILLIAM A BONG LTD (4) J BONDI LTD (5) EVERSHEDS (a firm) v (1) EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS PLC (2) ROSIE BOYCOTT (3) RACHEL BAIRD
An advice prepared by junior and leading counsel to the Second, Third and Fourth Claimants in their proceedings against a firm of accountants had come into the hands of the Third Defendant who had read and then destroyed the document. The Defendants sought to appeal an order by Morland J requiring the Second and Third Defendants to serve an affidavit stating whether they knew the identity of the person or persons who had provided the copy of the draft advice, to identify those persons if they were known to them, and to state all facts and matters of which they knew which would or might assist the Claimants in identifying that person or persons. The Court of Appeal set aside the order, holding that this was a one-off infringement of professional legal confidentiality which did not justify making an in-road into the privilege of a journalist's sources as protected by section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981.
(1)
JAMES GILBERT LTD (2) RODNEY WEBB v MGN LTD
A Statement in Open Court resolving the libel action between the Claimants,
a limited company which produced rugby balls and a director of the company,
and the publisher of The Sunday Mirror, in which an article had appeared
entitled 'Slave Balls firm breaks its promise'. The article followed previous
articles alleging that the firm had unknowingly been employing child labour
in India in the manufacture of its rugby balls. The article complained
of alleged that the firm had reneged on its promise to investigate the
allegations. The Defendant's defence of qualified privilege on Reynolds
principles had been struck out on the basis that the Defendant had not
taken reasonable and responsible steps to ascertain the truth of the situation.
The matter was then adjourned so that the parties could agree summary
relief which would otherwise be determined by the court. The Defendant
agreed to pay the Claimant's legal costs and damages in the sum of £10,000
and undertook to publish an agreed apology in the next edition of The
Sunday Mirror.
DEBORAH
PRICE v MGN LTD
The Claimant, a television researcher on the television chat show 'Vanessa',
resolved her libel action against the publisher of The Mirror. It had
transpired that several of the guests appearing on the show were 'fakes'
who had falsified their accounts to viewers. A front page article had
appeared in the newspaper alleging that the Claimant, who had arranged
for guests to appear on the show, had known that the guests were fakes
and had therefore deliberately deceived her employers. In fact, the Claimant
neither knew nor suspected that the guests were fake and had been caused
great upset by the article, particularly because of its prominence and
the fact that it was republished throughout the media. The parties read
a Statement in Open Court and the Defendant agreed to publish an apology
in the following day's edition of The Mirror and to pay the Claimant a
large sum in damages and her legal costs.
NORMAN
DANIEL DWEK v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD : SAME v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS
LTD : SAME v MACMILLAN PUBLISHERS LTD
Statement in Open Court resolving the libel action brought by the Claimant
against the publishers of 'Fayed: the Unauthorised Biography', The Mail
on Sunday and The Evening Standard. The First Defendant had published,
and the Second Defendant had republished, a photograph which was described
as being of Dodi Fayed with a prostitute. In fact, the photograph was
of the Claimant and had caused serious damage to his personal and professional
reputation. The Defendants apologised for any embarrassment caused to
the Claimant by the photograph and agreed to pay a substantial sum in
damages and his legal costs. The two newspapers agreed to publish apologies.
R
v BROADCASTING STANDARDS COMMISSION, EX PARTE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Broadcasting Standards
Commission that the retailer Dixons had suffered an unwarranted infringement
of its privacy by the BBC's secret filming of sales transactions at Dixons'
stores for the purposes of the 'Watchdog' consumer affairs programme.
As no mis-selling was revealed, the footage taken was never shown on television.
The BBC contended that a company could not enjoy a right to privacy in
law, that a right to privacy could not be infringed by secret filming
of non-private matters in a place to which the public had access and that
in all the circumstances there was no unwarranted infringement of Dixons'
privacy. The Court of Appeal considered that a company could be entitled
to a right to privacy and that the fact that the filming of a public place
would also involve the filming of the public might make it more of an
infringement of Dixons' interests than filming at a place to which the
public did not have access. In reaching its decision, the Commission was
performing the role of setting standards of what was or was not acceptable
conduct in the broadcasting sphere. That was an area in which the Courts
should be particularly hesitant about intervening, and the decision actually
made was well within the margin of appreciation which was to be afforded
to the Commission.