Charles Northcott v David Hundeyin
[2024] EWHC 2704 (KB)
Ken Bates v Tom Rubython & Anor
25 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2706 (KB)
High Court
A magazine wrote a nasty article about Ken Bates, saying he did bad things. A judge said the article was untrue and hurtful, making the magazine pay Ken Bates a lot of money and promising not to write more lies about him.
Key Facts
- •Ken Bates (Claimant) sued Tom Rubython and BusinessF1 Magazine Limited (Defendants) for libel over an article titled “The biggest ‘wrong-un’ in sport.”
- •The article contained serious allegations of murder, fraud, and tax evasion against Bates.
- •The Defendants admitted publication but argued Bates had a pre-existing bad reputation, precluding serious harm.
- •The trial involved pre-trial applications to strike out parts of the Defence and Witness Statement due to inadmissibility.
- •The court considered various legal principles regarding evidence of bad reputation in libel cases, particularly in relation to the serious harm requirement under the Defamation Act 2013.
- •The court found the article defamatory and caused serious harm to Bates' reputation.
- •The Defendants failed to comply with a court order to disclose subscriber information.
- •The court awarded Bates £150,000 in damages, including aggravated damages, granted an injunction, and ordered publication of a judgment summary.
Legal Principles
Presumption of a reputation capable of being damaged; defendant may rebut this presumption to mitigate damages.
Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44; Wright v McCormack [2023] EWCA Civ 892
Rules of evidence regarding bad reputation evidence: general bad reputation admissible, but not rumours, other publications making the same allegation, specific acts of misconduct (unless directly relevant to the context of publication), or prior misconduct unless known to publishees.
Scott v Sampson (1887) 8 QBD 491; Plato Films Ltd v Speidel [1961] AC 1090; Associated Newspapers Ltd v Dingle [1964] AC 371; Goody v Odhams Press Ltd [1967] 1 QB 333; Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 3469
Burstein evidence (particular facts directly relevant to the context of publication) admissible in mitigation of damages; must be cautiously applied.
Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 479; Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 540; Warren v The Random House Group Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 834
Serious harm requirement under Defamation Act 2013, s.1(1): requires proof of actual or likely serious harm to reputation; pre-existing reputation is relevant.
Defamation Act 2013, s.1(1); Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27
Meaning of a defamatory statement: single natural and ordinary meaning, determined by the reasonable reader; publication read as a whole.
Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48; Millet v Corbyn [2021] EWCA Civ 567
Damages for defamation: compensate for harm to reputation, vindication, injury to feelings; aggravated damages for improper conduct; proportionality under ECHR Article 10.
Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226
Injunctions: granted if there is a real risk of repetition and is proportionate under ECHR Article 10.
Section 12 Order (Defamation Act 2013): court's discretion to order publication of a judgment summary; proportionality under ECHR Article 10.
Defamation Act 2013, s.12
Outcomes
Struck out parts of the Amended Defence and the First Defendant's Witness Statement.
The struck-out material was inadmissible, irrelevant, or failed to comply with CPR rules.
Found the article defamatory and bore several meanings, including serious allegations of murder and fraud.
The court applied the principles of determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the article, considering the context and the reasonable reader.
Found the publication caused serious harm to Bates' reputation.
The court considered the gravity of the allegations, the number of readers, the likelihood of the allegations 'sticking', and the Defendants' conduct, including their failure to disclose subscriber information.
Awarded Bates £150,000 in damages (including aggravated damages).
The court considered the harm to reputation, vindication, injury to feelings, and aggravating conduct by the Defendants.
Granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from publishing similar allegations.
There was a real risk of repetition due to the First Defendant's animosity towards Bates.
Made an order under s.12 of the Defamation Act 2013 requiring the Defendants to publish a summary of the judgment.
The order would assist in repairing Bates' reputation and obtaining vindication, and was deemed proportionate.