SAIF AL ISLAM GADDAFI v TELEGRAPH GROUP LTD

The Defendant applied to have the Claimant's libel claim struck out for delay and/or abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2). Since the Court of Appeal's decision in October 1998 allowing the Claimant to amend his pleading to take account of the Court of Appeal's decision in Reynolds v Times Newspapers, the Claimant had taken no action until he sought a case management conference in March 2000. The Court held that the Claimant's delay could not be characterised as either an affront to the courts or in wholesale disregard of the norms of conducting serious litigation, especially having regard to the uncertain state of the law of qualified privilege as the decision of the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers was awaited. The critical question now was whether it was now possible to have a fair trial of the issues. The Court considered that it was and dismissed the application.

JANE PROCTOR v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD

The Claimant, a former editor of Tatler magazine, resolved her libel claim against the Defendant and the parties read a Statement in Open Court. The Defendant had published in The Mail on Sunday an article alleging that the Claimant had left Tatler because she had a poor relationship with her staff and had been unsympathetic to one employee whose mother had been diagnosed with cancer. In fact, the Claimant was involved with several cancer charities and had approved compassionate leave to that employee until the time of her mother's death. The Defendant claimed to have published the article in good faith but accepted that the article may have given readers the wrong impression. It apologised and agreed to pay the Claimant £5,000 in damages and her costs.

(1) STEPHEN IRVING (2) ANNE IRVING (3) SARAH CARTER v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD & PAUL HIGGINS v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD

The Claimants in these two actions, who were at the relevant time partners and a solicitor in the solicitors' firm Irvings, resolved their action against the publisher of The Daily Mail and a statement was read in open court. The Mail had published an article alleging that the Claimants' firm was a 'fatcat' firm which was taking substantial legal costs from unwarranted litigation against the local council and was being investigated by the Law Society. In fact, the firm had always acted with professionalism on behalf of its clients and no complaint had been made to the Law Society. The Defendant did not contend that there was any truth in the allegations and paid damages to the Claimants and their costs.

BRIAN ADAMSON v (1) MGN LTD (2) NIGEL BOWDEN (3) DEAN ROUSEWELL

Statement in Open Court in a libel action brought by the Claimant, a night-club owner, against the First and Third Defendants, the publisher of The Sunday People, and a journalist employed by the First Defendant. Proceedings had not been served on the Second Defendant. An article by the Third Defendant entitled 'How Dancers became trapped in a sunshine hell of vice' had been published in The Sunday People in August 1998. The article contained allegations by two women who had worked as dancers in the Costa Del Sol alleging that two of the clubs they had worked in were little more than brothels. The third club, owned by the Claimant, was not described as a brothel but the article may have conveyed the impression that it was. The Defendant accepted that there was no truth in the direct or indirect allegations made against the Claimant in the article and paid the Claimant his costs and damages.

HM ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Claimant) v GEORGE BLAKE (Defendant) & JONATHAN CAPE LTD (Third Party)

The Defendant, a former member of the Secret Intelligence Service, had become a spy for the Soviet Union, until he was arrested in 1960 and convicted of 5 counts of unlawfully communicating information contrary to s.1(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act 1911. He escaped from his detention in Wormwood Scrubs in 1966 into the Soviet Union where he now lives and from where he wrote a book of his experiences for which he received £100,000 from the publishers Jonathan Cape Ltd. The book was published in 1990 and the Claimant sought to extract any financial benefit that the Defendant obtained or might obtain from the book as this benefit had arisen from his criminality. The House of Lords agreed that Blake must make a reasonable payment in respect of the benefit he had gained. The fact that the information was no longer confidential did not prevent such a remedy being awarded in this case, although the 'freezing order' which had been granted by the Court of Appeal was outside the powers of the Court. The proper remedy was a declaration that the Attorney- General was entitled to be paid a sum equal to whatever amount was owing to Blake from Jonathan Cape Ltd.

TRACEY ATTWOOD v MGN LTD

The mother of a girl who tragically died during surgery resolved her libel action against the Defendant in respect of an article published in The Mirror entitled 'Birthmark girl's needless death a lesson for us all'. It was alleged in the article that the Claimant should not have allowed her daughter to have the fatal cosmetic surgery to remove a birthmark as the operation was unnecessary. Further, that she deserved any guilt she was said to be feeling. In fact, the birthmark was extremely disfiguring and potentially life-threatening and the decision to have the operation had been made on medical grounds. The Defendant had already published an apology to the Claimant and admitted that it was wrong to publish the article. A Statement in Open Court was read and the Defendant paid the Claimant her costs and damages.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION v KELLY

The Family Division of the High Court decided that it was not a contempt of court for the media to interview a known ward of court. Where a party applied for an injunction restraining the media from broadcasting an interview with a ward of court, strong evidence was required to establish that the applicant fell within paragraph 2 of Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to justify overriding the basic right of freedom of expression.

CELESTINE BABAYARO v EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS

Statement in Open Court resolving the action between the international and premier league footballer against the Defendant, the publisher of the 'Daily Star' web site. Between July and October 1999, the Defendant published on its web-site an article headlined 'Babayaro Rape Case' which gave the impression that the Claimant was standing trial as a co-defendant on charges of rape and attempted rape. In fact, the Defendant was not tried for rape or attempted rape and was acquitted of the lesser offences with which he was charged. The Defendant claimed that it had intended to publish a fair and accurate report of the legal proceedings, but apologised for distress or embarrassment caused to the Claimant. It withdrew any inference that he had been tried for rape or attempted rape and paid damages and the Claimant's costs.

R v CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, EX PARTE MARTIN BRIGHT : R v SAME, EX PARTE ALTON : R v SAME, EX PARTE RUSBRIDGER

The applicants (The Guardian, The Observer and the journalist Martin Bright) sought judicial review of the production orders made against them by HH Judge Martin Stephens QC, under which they were obliged to produce all files, documents and records in their possession relating to a letter from David Shayler published in the letters column of The Guardian on 17 February 2000 and an article by Bright in The Observer on 27 February 2000, both of which repeated allegations made by Shayler that in 1996 British intelligence/security officers were involved in a plot to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi. The Metropolitan Police, which was investigating potential breaches by Shayler of The Official Secrets Act, had been granted the orders under The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Court held that the order against The Guardian was not justified as there was no plausible evidence to refute the paper's denial that it had any record of the letter (which had been sent by e-mail) or of Shayler's e-mail address. The order against The Observer and Martin Bright was modified to refer to one document only; namely a copy of a letter sent by Shayler to the Home Secretary. There were reasonable grounds for believing that this document was in their possession.

TRINITY MIRROR PLC & ANOR v PUNCH LTD

In June 2000, the magazine Punch had reproduced hard copies of a number of The Mirror's e-mails which contained confidential and private information. The Mirror, in its effort to find out how the documents were leaked, sought production of the documents with the fax headers. Punch refused that request claiming that the identity of the two sources would become clear from such disclosure. The Mirror then applied to the court for delivery up of the documents minus the fax headers, on the grounds that if the documents were the same as those at its offices, it would have been clear that the leak came from an employee. The court refused to grant the application emphasising that section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 existed to protect disclosure of sources. Accordingly, The Mirror was not entitled to the application sought.

KELLY LOUISE ANTONUCCI v (1) IPC MAGAZINES LTD (2) MIKE HOLLINGSWORTH

Statement in Open Court: the Claimant, a model, sued the publisher and editor of the television listings magazine 'What's on TV' for allegations contained in an article which purported to be based on an interview with the Claimant's former husband. Mr Antonucci had won the National Lottery before meeting the Claimant, and the article alleged that the Claimant had spent all her husband's money on herself and her friends, thereby reducing him to insolvency and destroying the marriage. In fact, the Claimant had not done any of these things. The Defendants acknowledged that the allegations were false. They publicly retracted and apologised for them, paying the Claimant's costs and damages in the sum of £7,500.

Back to top