An allegation of insolvency was made against a well known businessman. An apology in agreed terms was published after 3 weeks.
Held: A jury award of 45,000 in damages was not excessive for a libel despite an apology having been given. The plaintiff’s prominence was a relevant circumstance.
Citations:
Times 26-Jul-1996, [1996] EMLR 493
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Kiam v Neil and Another CA 14-Dec-1994
A defendant may not tell the jury of pre-trial offers of settlement from the Plaintiff on damages. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Kiam v MGN Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
Where a court regards a jury award in a defamation case as excessive, a ‘proper’ award can be substituted for it is not whatever sum court thinks appropriate, wholly uninfluenced by jury’s view, but the highest award which a jury could reasonably . .
See Also – Kiam v Neil and Another CA 14-Dec-1994
A defendant may not tell the jury of pre-trial offers of settlement from the Plaintiff on damages. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Damages
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.82773