Cases of Interest
MARTIN MCGARTLAND v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD
Statement in Open Court made resolving proceedings brought by the Claimant, a writer on Northern Ireland, against the Defendant, the publisher of 'The Daily Mail', 'The Evening Standard' and the 'This is London' web-site. An article was published in the aforementioned publications in June 1999 concerning an assassination attempt on the Claimant, alleging that the shooting might be related to the Claimant's links with criminal gangs in the area where he lived. The Defendant accepted that the allegations were wholly untrue, and paid the Claimant damages and his costs.
HM
ATTORNEY-GENERAL v (1) PUNCH LTD (2) JAMES STEEN (2000)
The Attorney-General applied for penalties for contempt of court to be
imposed on the Defendants, the publisher and editor of Punch magazine,
in respect of an article in the magazine allegedly published in contempt
of orders made by Hooper J on 4 September 1997 in proceedings brought
by the Claimant against David Shayler and Associated Newspapers Ltd. The
injunctions prevented Mr Shayler from disclosing certain information obtained
by him as a result of his employment in the Security Service. The Defendants
notified the Treasury Solicitor of the article prior to publication but
were not given prior clearance. The article concerned the Bishopsgate
bombing. The Court held that the Defendants had contravened the injunctions
with the result that they had frustrated or thwarted the purpose of the
Court's order which was to prevent disclosure of material covered by the
injunctions without the Attorney-General's consent until after the trial,
and in consequence that there had been some significant and adverse effect
on the administration of justice. The test for Mens Rea ('criminal intent')
was satisfied as the Defendants had knowledge of the injunctions and knew
that the publication of the article was a breach of them. Although the
Defendants considered that the injunctions contravened Article 10 of the
European Convention on Human Rights, the orders were clearly justified
under the exceptions to the right in Article 10(2) and committal was 'proportionate
to the legitimate aim pursued' particularly in view of the Defendants'
conduct. The application was allowed and the decision on the penalty to
be imposed was adjourned.
FRANK
JOHN WARREN v (1) NASEEM HAMED (2) BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION
The well-known professional boxing promoter and manager resolved his libel
action against the Defendants and a Statement in Open Court was read by
the parties. The second Defendant had broadcast an edition of 'Parkinson'
in which the first Defendant, a world champion featherweight boxer, was
interviewed. He stated that when the Claimant was his manager, he felt
manipulated and exploited. The Second Defendant accepted that the allegations
should not have been broadcast and apologised to the Claimant. The Defendants
undertook not to repeat the allegations and paid damages and the Claimant's
costs.
(1)
AXA (2) SUN LIFE AND PROVINCIAL HOLDINGS PLC v PRIORI PUBLISHING LTD
Statement in Open Court resolving libel proceedings by the corporate Claimants,
both sponsors of the FA cup, against the Defendant publisher of 'Business
Age' in respect of an article published in the magazine which alleged
that AXA companies had colluded in, and criminally exploited, the Nazi
holocaust in Europe. The article further alleged that the companies were
managed by the Nazis and had employed unscrupulous tactics after the war
to avoid having to pay out on life insurance policies to relatives of
Nazi victims. The article claimed that the companies had attempted to
block an investigation into its activities by US courts and the US commission
on these matters. The Defendant withdrew the claims and apologised to
the Claimants.
(1)
ANTONY ARULANANDAM (2) CHRISTOPHER ARULANANDAM (3) INSTANT SERVICE PARTNERSHIP
(a firm) v GRANADA TELEVISION LTD
Statement in Open Court brought by the Claimants, a property services
firm and its owners and partners, against the Defendant, a broadcaster
and maker of the programme 'House of Horrors' which uncovered 'cowboy
plumbers' and featured a firm which was referred to on more than one occasion
in the programme as 'Instant Service'. This firm was described as 'the
most complained-about plumbers in Britain'. The Claimant's firm is also
known as 'Instant Service' although it has no connection with the firm
featured. The Claimants' reputation and business were damaged by the connection
of their firm with that featured. The Defendant agreed to pay damages
and the Claimants' legal costs, apologising for any distress and damage
caused to the Claimants but maintaining that it had no knowledge of the
Claimant firm and did not intend that the programme should be understood
to refer to it.