Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd

The House considered a libel action in which the publisher relied upon the defence of justification and the jury had found for the claimant. Central legal principles were the identification of the "sting" of the published articles, the requirement that a defendant pleading justification prove the substantial truth of that sting, and the limited circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with a jury verdict as perverse. The House held that a jury is entitled to select between competing meanings of a publication and to assess credibility and damages, and that an appellate court must only quash a jury verdict for perversity if no reasonable jury could have reached it. The House concluded that the jury could properly have found that the sting related to deliberate match‑fixing on the pitch (which was not proved) even though the tapes showed corrupt agreements and receipt of money; accordingly the jury's verdict on liability was restorable but the award of substantial damages was unsupportable and was reduced to nominal damages.

The claimant, a prominent football goalkeeper, sued The Sun and its editor for libel after a series of articles alleged that he had accepted bribes and fixed or attempted to fix matches. The defendants relied on justification, principally the audio and video recordings of meetings between the claimant and a dishonest informant, and the parties agreed the defamatory meaning of the articles. The case proceeded to trial before Gray J and a jury, which found for the claimant and awarded £85,000. The Court of Appeal set that verdict aside as perverse and entered judgment for the newspaper

The House was asked to review whether the Court of Appeal was right to characterise the jury verdict as perverse. Important factual material included recorded admissions by the claimant, contemporaneous cash payments, and expert video evidence that the claimant's on‑pitch performance did not show deliberate errors. The judge had directed the jury on "substantial truth" and on the possibility of reducing damages to reflect partial justification (a Pamplin direction).

The key issues for the House were:

• What was the "sting" of the publications for the purposes of the justification defence?
• Whether the evidence established corrupt agreements and receipt of bribes.
• Whether the jury's verdict was perverse in law so as to justify interference by the Court of Appeal.
• Whether the appellate court (and ultimately the House) had power to substitute a different award of damages.

The majority concluded that the jury could reasonably have treated the sting as the allegation of deliberately fixing matches (ie deliberately letting in goals), that on the evidence the defendants had established corrupt agreements and receipt of money but had not proved on the balance of probabilities that the claimant had actually fixed matches on the pitch, and therefore the jury's verdict for the claimant on that sting could not properly be branded perverse. However, the award of £85,000 was excessive in the light of the admitted corrupt agreements (which destroyed much of the claimant's reputation) and was reduced to nominal damages of £1. The House held it had power to substitute a different award and gave the claimant leave to apply for a limited injunction restraining repetition of the finding that he actually fixed or attempted to fix matches. One Law Lord would have dismissed the appeal, finding the jury's liability verdict perverse.

Appeal allowed. The House held that the jury could have validly treated the "sting" of the articles as the accusation that the claimant had deliberately fixed or attempted to fix matches and that, on the evidence, the newspaper had not proved that allegation; thus the jury's verdict on liability should be restored. However, the tapes and other evidence did establish corrupt agreements and receipt of bribes, so the substantial £85,000 award was unjustified and was reduced to nominal damages of £1. The House also held it had power to substitute the damages award and gave the claimant leave to seek a narrowly‑framed injunction against repetition of assertions that he actually fixed matches.

Trial before Gray J and a jury (verdict for claimant, £85,000). Court of Appeal set aside the jury verdict as perverse and entered judgment for the defendants: Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 All ER 437. Appeal to the House of Lords allowed: [2002] UKHL 40.