Monty
Norman v Times Newspapers
The Claimant, Monty Norman, was awarded £30,000 libel damages for
an article published in the Sunday Times in 1997 which alleged that he
had falsely taken credit for composing the theme tune to the 1962 Bond
file, Dr. No. The Times denied libel, relying on evidence given by John
Barry, another composer of some of the Bond theme music, who claimed that
he had been brought in at the last minute to write the tune because Norman
had run out of inspiration. The jury took four hours to return the verdict,
after a two week hearing which will reportedly cost Times Newspapers in
the region of half a million pounds.
Times Newspapers v. George Weidenfeld & Nicholson Ltd &
Dumpton Gap & Co
In 1985, the publication rights to the memoirs of Sir Edward Heath were
sold by Sir Heath's agents, "DG", to the publishers, "
GW". The Times bought the serialisation rights from GW for £100,000.
By the time the memoirs were finished in 1997, the publishing agreement
between DG and GW had been terminated. GW failed to deliver the rights
to the Times who consequently bought them directly from DG, paying £220,000
and sued GW for the extra money they spent buying the same rights for
a second time. GW brought a third party action against DG, which was compromised.
The
issues were whether GW was in breach of contract for failing to deliver
the rights and, if they were, the amount that was recoverable in damages.
The Times argued liability on the basis that the serialisation contract
contained two implied terms:
1. that GW would do nothing in relation to their publishing agreement
with DG, that would take away GW's power to grant the serialisation rights
to the Times.
2. this was implied by virtue of an express warranty in the serialisation
contract guaranteeing that GW had the power to grant the rights and the
Times would be indemnified for any loss that flowed from a breach of that
warranty.
3. It follows that what was implied by that warranty was that GW had and
would continue to have the power to grant the first serialisation rights
under that agreement.
The
court did not accept that these terms could be implied and the claim was
dismissed. The court was reluctant to imply into contracts, less than
obvious terms especially where care had been taken to draft the agreement
in light of another agreement. Generally, implied terms must not go further
than to give an agreement business efficacy and such a term must not be
inconsistent with the effect of the express terms taken together. It held
that
1. the implied term that GW should do nothing to compromise its power
to grant the rights in the future, was too wide and did not accord with
the other, express terms of the agreement.
2. the warranty was a standard warranty of "full power to make"
the serialisation agreement, which GW clearly had when it was made.
3. had the claim succeeded, the amount of damages payable would have been
the difference between the amount paid to GW in the first instance and
the amount paid to DG, namely £120,000.
Cindy
Jackson v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd
The Claimant, a cosmetic surgery advisor, brought a libel claim over an
article headed "Beauty doctors who ruin good looks go on working".
The article alleged that the Claimant had knowingly recommended negligent
cosmetic surgeons to her patients.
In a Statement in Open Court, the Defendants accepted that the allegations had been without foundation and that the Claimant was always careful to provide information that was both high quality and current.
Totalise plc v. The Motley Fool Ltd and Anor (unreported) TLR 15/03/2001
The Claimant is an ISP. The application was for pre-action disclosure
the full name and address of "Z Dust", the author of defamatory
postings on the Defendants' websites and "all documents which are
or have been in their possession, custody or power relating to the identity
of Z Dust". A number of grounds were advanced on behalf of the Defendants
to persuade the court not make such an order, namely, 1) the Claimant
was engaged in a fishing expedition, 2) the Defendants had an obligation
to keep client details confidential, both as data controllers under the
Data Protection Act 199 and under the terms and conditions of access to
their discussion boards, 3) under s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981,
the court is not entitled, subject to the normal exceptions, to order
disclosure because the tortfeasor is a " source of information contained
in a publication for which [the Defendants] were responsible".
The court held the following respectively, 1) The material posted was prima facie defamatory, 2) s. 35 of the DPA 1998 preserves and does not restrict the court's powers with regard to computer data and the Defendants' duty under the terms and conditions of access to their website is outweighed by the obligation imposed on those who become involved in the tortious acts of others to assist the party injured by those acts, 3) s. 10 of the CCA 1981 has no application to the facts of this case. The section concerns the protection of journalists sources and, in any event, disclosure was necessary and in the public interest.
The court ordered the relief sought on the facts of the case. The nature of the defamatory material was very serious, the court recognised a concerted campaign against the Claimant, the potential audience was without geographical limit and the Claimant was at very serious risk of damage. Furthermore, the tortfeasor was hiding behind the anonymity afforded by access to the Defendants website and the Claimant had no other means of discovering the identity of the tortfeasor.