JUDGE AWARDS £175k DAMAGES FOR ONLINE LIBEL

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2011/news/judge-awards-175k-damages-out-of-%E2%80%98maximum-240k%E2%80%99-for-online-libel/

Judge awards £175k damages for online libel

by Nigel Hanson, last updated on September 13, 2011

A billionaire Saudi businessman was awarded £175,000 in libel damages by an English court for a defamatory article likely to have been read by a few thousand people.

The substantial award was close to the “ceiling” for libel damages which, the ruling confirms, is now about £240,000.

The case, Al-Almoudi v Kifle, reveals how English judges assess libel damages and the impact, on a foreigner’s reputation in this country, of defamatory online publications read here.

The claimant was Ethiopian-born Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Al-Amoudi, an international businessman of huge wealth – regularly listed in Forbes magazine as one of the richest people in the world – with interests in a range of sectors including oil, mining, agriculture and finance.

He sued the publisher and editor-in-chief of an online news site, Ethiopian Review, over an article that levelled extremely serious allegations against him.

The judge, HHJ Richard Parkes QC, held that the article bore the following defamatory meanings:

- that the claimant had callously married off his daughter, aged 13, as a gift to an elderly member of the Saudi royal family;

- that he was probably responsible for the murder of her (supposed) lover and the mutilation, burning, parading and hanging of his body in Fallujah, Iraq, as revenge for their (supposed) relationship;

- that he had been hunting his daughter and his (supposed) granddaughter to ensure their execution in Saudi Arabia by way of flogging, stoning to death or otherwise; and

- that there were reasonable grounds to suspect he had knowingly financed international terrorism.

Unsurprisingly, the judge said: “This is one of those rare cases where the lawyers’ customary hyperbole – that it is difficult to imagine more serious allegations – may perhaps be justified.”

He noted Mr Al-Amoudi was a high-profile figure who had invested some $4bn in Ethiopia, with 62,000 people working for him there, and top-level business contacts in England.

He also noted he had home in central London and a house in Surrey, and had visited this country about 12 times in the past year.

He said: “I have no doubt that he is a man with real, substantial and long established connections to this country, where he is well known in the business community. He is plainly a man with an established reputation to protect in this jurisdiction.”

The defendant did not respond to the libel claim in court at all; a judgment in default of acknowledgment of service was entered in favour of the Sheikh.

Indeed, the defendant’s attitude appeared dismissive throughout. Part of his response to the initial letter of complaint from Mr Al-Amoudi’s lawyers was: “Here is my formal statement. Screw yourself.”

(Aficionados of Private Eye magazine will know that this is redolent of the abusive response given in the celebrated case of Arkell v Pressdram.)

After considering evidence from Ethiopians living in England who had read the Ethiopian Review article online, the judge deduced it was probably read by “several thousand” of the 50,000-strong Ethiopian diaspora here, including by senior figures at the Ethiopian embassy.

He took into account the fact that the website’s readership in England was evidently large enough to attract advertising here.

The judge said: “An award of general damages for libel serves three functions: first, to act as a consolation to the claimant for the distress and embarrassment which he has suffered from the publication of defamatory words; secondly, to compensate for the injury to his reputation; and thirdly, to act as vindication for his reputation.

“I bear in mind the overriding principle that, in order to comply with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights [freedom of expression], an award of damages must be proportionate to the legitimate aim of compensating the claimant for the injury and distress which he has suffered and of providing him with vindication.”

In view of the very serious defamation, he decided the appropriate level of damages would be close to the maximum that was delineated by Mr Justice Eady in a case nine years ago.

He said: “The practical ceiling for libel damages is perhaps £230,000 – £240,000, reflecting the award of £200,000 by Eady J. in Lillie v Newcastle City Council (2002), with some adjustment for inflation.”

He added: “Taking everything into account and looking at it in the round, it seems to me that a proper aware for this libel is £175,000. That is the award which I make.”

This particular assessment of damages will likely be academic, as the defendant is based in the USA where English libel judgments may be unenforceable, but it nevertheless throws a spotlight on the general principles that apply.

Solicitor Nigel Hanson is a member of Foot Anstey’s media team. To contact him telephone 0800 0731 411 or e-mail nigel.hanson@footanstey.com or visit www.footanstey.com.

Isn't what Bennett has posted about different people, even worse than this Bonny.

I can't wait for the press reports when Bennett goes to Court. It might be GOODBYE HARLOW, his neighbours will be pleased if he's locked up.
Sorry I don't have any sympathy for his wife, she's either gutless or scared shit of him

Shouldn't be too long now for the first appearance. Bring it on

Interesting how Article 10 of the European Convention.............[freedom of expression] was brought in by the Judge when considering the damages.

The defendant should have responded to the libel suit instead of allowing it to go into default.

Well, I don't think he has accused anyone of international terrorism yet - though he was pretty close with the ridiculous gun-running story..

Searching for female relatives to have them executed? Not so far.

But...Bennett is British. His victims are British. His sites are all English-language, aimed at a predominantly British audience. He has stuck two fingers up to the High Court of England and Wales.

So, while the allegations are marginally less lurid, the fact that his vile remarks have gained such a wide British audience is possibly worse.

And he won't get away with trying to claim it was confined to his own site, either. Every time one of the hater trolls repeated Bennett's allegations on other sites, it was screenshot and passed on to interested parties, as proof of the damage done to his victims' reputations.

Oh, didn't Bennett know that?

He must have known that that would happen, Bonny?