The court looked at the calculation of damages after an offer of amends under the Act by the defendant.
Held: Such calculations have to be linked to the very different circumstances of each case. Comparisons with awards after jury trial were unhepful: ‘I am not concerned with hypothesising as to what a particular group of 12 lay persons might have done, on the basis of what other groups of lay persons have done in the past’ and ‘I must also have an eye to the levels of compensation awarded in personal injury claims. That is in accordance with the modern practice and was only recognised as acceptable following the Court of Appeal’s decision in John v MGN Ltd [1997] Q.B. 586. It is important to realise that there have been relatively few jury awards over the intervening period. One needs naturally to put to one side some of the well known awards in earlier cases where juries were not invited to take such factors into account. There is, therefore, as we have been told more than once recently, a ‘new landscape’ and assessments have to be made without the baggage of that previous experience.’ He continued: ‘the amount of financial compensation is likely to be assessed partly be reference to the timing, scope and effectiveness of any apology made, or proffered, and it clearly makes sense for the two matters to be on the agenda for discussion at the same time.’
It is appropriate in defamation, as in other areas of the law, for a tortfeasor to ‘take his victim as he finds him’.
Judges:
Eady J
Citations:
[2004] EMLR 37, [2003] EWHC 137 (QB)
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – John v MGN Ltd CA 12-Dec-1995
Defamation – Large Damages Awards
MGN appealed as to the level of damages awarded against it namely pounds 350,000 damages, comprising pounds 75,000 compensatory damages and pounds 275,000 exemplary damages. The newspaper contended that as a matter of principle there is no scope in . .
Cited by:
Cited – Nail v Jones, Harper Collins Publications Ltd; Nail v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Wade etc QBD 26-Mar-2004
The claimant was upset by an article published by the defendant making false allegations that he had behaved in a sexually profligate manner many years earlier. When it was substantially repeated he sued.
Held: The words were defamatory. An . .
Cited – Nail and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others CA 20-Dec-2004
The claimant appealed the award of damages in his claim for defamation. The defendants had variously issued apologies. The claimant had not complained initially as to one publication.
Held: In defamation proceedings the damage to feelings is . .
Cited – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers QBD 19-Feb-2008
Complaint was made that an article was defamatory of the owner of Manchester United. The defendant now argued that the game was not worth the candle. The costs vastly exceeded any possible recovery, and it had openly offered vindication, and that . .
Cited – Bowman v MGN Ltd QBD 26-Apr-2010
The claimant complained of an article on the defendant’s web-site. The defendant offered an unqualified offer of amends. The court was asked to settle an amount of compensation. Though the article was removed within a few hours and upon receipt of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Damages
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.195004