Frank Sinton v Maybourne Hotels Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 647 (KB)
Zoë Harcombe PhD & Anor v Associated Newspapers Limited & Anor
25 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1523 (KB)
High Court
A newspaper published articles saying two doctors spread lies about statins. The court said the articles were defamatory because they were inaccurate, unfair to the doctors, and didn't show the doctors' side of the story. Even though the articles talked about an important issue, the court said the way the newspaper presented the story wasn't fair and didn't protect the public interest.
Key Facts
- •The Claimants, Zoë Harcombe PhD and Dr Malcolm Kendrick, sued Associated Newspapers Limited and Barney Calman (Health Editor) for libel over articles published in the Mail on Sunday on March 3, 2019.
- •The articles criticized the Claimants for spreading misinformation about statins.
- •The Defendants relied on defenses of honest opinion, truth, qualified privilege (s.15 Defamation Act 1996 and s.6 Defamation Act 2013), and public interest.
- •The Claimants alleged malice in the Defendants' use of a statement by the Health Secretary and reference to a scientific study.
- •The trial involved extensive evidence and expert testimony.
Legal Principles
Public Interest Defence (s.4 Defamation Act 2013)
Defamation Act 2013
Qualified Privilege: Reporting (s.15 Defamation Act 1996)
Defamation Act 1996
Qualified Privilege: Peer-Reviewed Scientific Statements (s.6 Defamation Act 2013)
Defamation Act 2013
Malice in Qualified Privilege
Case Law (Horrocks v Lowe, Qadir v Associated Newspapers)
Natural and Ordinary Meaning; Fact/Opinion
Case Law (Koutsogiannis v Random House)
Outcomes
Public interest defence failed for all publications.
The articles misrepresented key facts, omitted crucial information from the Claimants' responses, and presented a misleading picture of the statin debate. The court found that Calman did not believe the Claimants were dishonest, yet the articles strongly implied dishonesty.
Qualified privilege for the Hancock Statement failed.
The articles misrepresented the statement, creating a false impression that the Health Secretary endorsed the allegations against the Claimants.
Qualified privilege for parts of the LSHTM Paper succeeded (except for one unprivileged paragraph).
The references were found to be fair and accurate extracts, except for the addition of unsubstantiated material linking the Claimants to the study.
The articles' meaning was found to be defamatory in both fact and opinion, accusing the Claimants of knowingly making false statements.
The court considered the articles as a whole, including headlines, presentation, and the use of the Hancock Statement, leading to the conclusion that the articles implied dishonesty.