Steedman & Ors v British Broadcasting Corporation

On a renewed application for permission to appeal concerning limitation in a libel claim, the court treated the defendant’s ability to defend as an important factor when reviewing the exercise of discretion under Limitation Act 1980, section 32A. The court also confirmed that the four-month period for serving proceedings issued within the limitation period does not create an implied extension of the period for issuing proceedings. Issuing proceedings within that additional service period is a factor which may be weighed with other circumstances, but it does not by itself require an extension or make refusal of relief perverse.

Eight Metropolitan police officers brought libel proceedings against the BBC concerning a television news broadcast on 16 April 1999. The one-year limitation period under section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 expired in April 2000, but proceedings were not issued until 26 June 2000, and no letter before action was sent until 27 July 2000.

Sir Oliver Popplewell refused to disapply section 4A under section 32A on 2 March 2001. Mantell LJ granted permission on grounds A(ii) and (iii). On the renewed application, the issue was whether permission should also be granted on grounds A(i), A(iv), A(v) and B.

1. Permission granted in part. The renewed application succeeded on grounds A(i) and A(v), in addition to the grounds for which Mantell LJ had already granted permission. Permission was refused on ground A(iv) and ground B.
2. The effect of the delay on the BBC’s ability to defend the libel claim was a factor of very great importance. Ground A(i) was properly arguable because that factor did not appear to have been referred to explicitly in the relevant part of the first-instance judgment.
3. Ground A(v), concerning the weighing of prejudice to the claimants against prejudice to the defendant, was a proper ground for consideration on the full appeal. The exercise under section 32A was discretionary.
4. Ground A(iv) lacked substance. The first-instance judge had not characterised the delay as tactical in the operative reasons for exercising his discretion. Suspicion expressed earlier in the judgment did not establish the alleged characterisation.
5. Ground B did not merit permission as a free-standing ground. The period allowed for service of proceedings issued within the limitation period did not amount to an implied extension of the ordinary one-year period for issuing proceedings. Issuing proceedings within the additional four months was a potentially relevant factor, but did not by itself require the court to grant relief or render the refusal of relief perverse. The absence of a letter before action was materially distinguishable from proceedings issued within the limitation period.
6. The order was that permission was extended to grounds A(i) and A(v). Costs were ordered in the appeal.

• High Court of Justice: Sir Oliver Popplewell refused on 2 March 2001 to exercise the discretion under section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 so as to disapply section 4A.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Mantell LJ granted permission on grounds A(ii) and (iii) on 23 March 2001. On the renewed application, the Court of Appeal extended permission to grounds A(i) and A(v), refused permission on grounds A(iv) and B, and made a costs order.