John v MGN Ltd

Compensatory damages for defamation must compensate injury to reputation, provide vindication and reflect distress, while remaining proportionate to the harm suffered. Counsel may suggest figures, the judge may indicate a bracket, and appellate or personal injury awards may assist as checks. The jury retains responsibility for fixing the award.

Exemplary damages require clear proof that the publisher lacked a genuine belief in the publication's truth and acted from a mercenary calculation that anticipated gain outweighed likely loss. Carelessness alone is insufficient. Exemplary damages may be added only where compensation does not adequately punish and deter, and must not exceed the minimum necessary for those purposes.

John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586 concerned a Sunday Mirror article which falsely alleged that the plaintiff had adopted a dangerous eating practice. Following a trial before Drake J and a jury, the plaintiff received £75,000 compensatory damages and £275,000 exemplary damages.

The newspaper appealed only against the damages. It contended that exemplary damages were unavailable or should have been withdrawn from the jury, that the jury had been misdirected under both heads, and that both awards were excessive. It also relied upon article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The central issues were the guidance which may be given to defamation juries and the conditions governing exemplary damages for a profit-motivated publication.

Appeal allowed in part. Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Neill LJ and Hirst LJ delivered a unanimous joint judgment. The compensatory award was reduced from £75,000 to £25,000 and the exemplary award from £275,000 to £50,000, producing a total award of £75,000.

1. Compensatory damages. Such damages compensate injury to reputation, vindicate the claimant's good name and reflect distress, hurt and humiliation. Important considerations include the gravity and extent of the publication, the prominence of the allegation, the defendant's apology or persistence, and its conduct of the litigation. The trial judge's directions were adequate under the existing practice, but £75,000 was excessive because the article neither attacked the plaintiff's integrity nor damaged his artistic reputation.
2. Guidance to juries. Previous jury awards should not presently be cited, but awards approved or substituted by the Court of Appeal may provide guidance. Conventional personal injury awards may be used as a check upon reasonableness, although no precise equation is possible. Counsel may suggest appropriate figures and the judge may indicate a bracket, while making clear that the jury remains responsible for the assessment. The contrary aspect of Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Limited [1994] QB 670 was not followed.
3. Exemplary damages. The publisher must know that it is committing a tort or act recklessly, without a genuine belief in the truth of the publication. Recklessness requires more than carelessness, however serious. It may be established where the publisher suspects falsity and deliberately avoids an obvious check which would establish the truth. The plaintiff must also prove a mercenary calculation that anticipated material gain outweighed the likely financial consequences. The civil standard applies, but the gravity of the allegation requires clear proof.
4. Application. The story was bizarre, damaging, non-urgent and readily verifiable through a simple inquiry. The total failure to check, despite a warning from the plaintiff's solicitor, was capable of establishing recklessness. Although the evidence did not show that the freelance journalist had been appointed as an agent to undertake wider checks, the newspaper's own conduct sufficed. Its sensational front-page presentation and the evidence that it expected the plaintiff might not sue permitted the inference of mercenary calculation, consistently with Riches v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1986] QB 256.
5. Amount and proportionality. Exemplary damages may be added only if compensatory damages are insufficient to punish, deter and show that tort does not pay. They must not exceed the minimum necessary for those purposes. The newspaper's means, degree of fault and actual profit are relevant. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms reinforced these common-law requirements but was not an independent source of domestic law. The £25,000 compensatory award was insufficient for punishment and deterrence, but £50,000 exemplary damages fully met those purposes.

MGN Ltd was awarded one half of its costs of the appeal. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal: In John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586, the court unanimously allowed the newspaper's appeal in part. It upheld the availability of exemplary damages but substituted £25,000 compensatory damages and £50,000 exemplary damages.
• High Court: Drake J left liability, compensatory damages and exemplary damages to a jury. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded £75,000 compensatory damages and £275,000 exemplary damages.