Key Facts
- •Dr. Ashti Hawrami, former Minister of Natural Resources in the KRG, brought a defamation claim against Journalism Development Network Inc., Daniel Balint-Kurti, and William Jordan.
- •The claim arose from an article alleging Hawrami's involvement in corrupt dealings related to oil concessions in Iraqi Kurdistan.
- •Defendants claimed qualified privilege under the Defamation Act 1996, arguing the article was a fair and accurate report of the Excalibur Litigation.
- •Hawrami sought summary judgment against the qualified privilege defence.
Legal Principles
Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Rule 24.3
Qualified Privilege (Fair and Accurate Report)
Defamation Act 1996, section 15 and Schedule 1
Meaning in Defamation (Curistan Problem)
Curistan v Times Newspapers [2009] QB 231
Repetition Rule in Defamation
Various cases cited in Curistan
Fairness and Accuracy in Qualified Privilege
Curistan v Times Newspapers [2009] QB 231, Qadir v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2606, Asifi v Amunwa [2017] EWHC 1443
Outcomes
Claimant's application for summary judgment dismissed.
The court found the defendants had real prospects of establishing qualified privilege for most of the article, as it was largely a fair and accurate report of the Excalibur litigation, despite some potentially defamatory interpretations and omissions. The court would not determine meaning at the summary judgment stage due to complexities involved and the interaction of meaning and qualified privilege.
Qualified privilege denied for specific parts of the article.
These parts inaccurately stated there was a legal requirement to cancel the Shaikan PSC upon finding the RA illegal, omitting that Hawrami ensured the RA benefits went to KRG. These statements did not accurately represent the Excalibur judgment, losing the qualified privilege defense.