Jameel v Abdul Latif Jameel Company Ltd

In a libel action, words referring to monitoring of accounts for potential terrorist ties were capable of conveying only the second level of defamatory meaning: that there were reasonable grounds to suspect involvement, rather than merely grounds for investigation.

Where qualified privilege is relied on and sources are anonymous, claimants must be able to test the journalist’s evidence and the reliability of the source. Evidence that is not adduced to prove falsity generally, or to show what further inquiries would have revealed, may nevertheless be relevant to rebut the journalist’s account, challenge the evidence supporting privilege, and support aggravated damages.

The claimants sued over an article published in the Wall Street Journal Europe concerning the monitoring of Saudi bank accounts allegedly connected with terrorist ties. They pleaded that the article identified them and conveyed that there were reasonable grounds to suspect them of terrorist links and of funnelling funds to terrorist organisations.

At a pre-trial review, the court was asked to delimit the possible meaning of the article and to determine whether eleven witness statements from Saudi banking institutions were admissible. The statements were intended to challenge evidence from the article’s journalist and another witness, and to support the claim for aggravated damages.

1. Meaning. The words were not capable of bearing a lesser defamatory meaning than that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the claimants of terrorist ties and of funnelling funds to terrorist organisations. The court applied the second tier identified in Chase v News Group Newspapers [2003] EMLR 218, rather than the lower tier involving grounds merely for investigation.
2. Admissibility and qualified privilege. The presumption that defamatory words are false did not prevent the claimants from adducing evidence directed to relevant issues. Evidence is not relevant to qualified privilege merely because it might show that the publication was false, or because it might show what further inquiries the publisher could have made. Those were the limits identified in GKR Karate v Yorkshire Post (No 1) [2000] EMLR 396.
3. The statements were admissible because they were directly relevant to rebutting the journalist’s account of an alleged conversation with an anonymous diplomatic source, and to challenging evidence asserting the continuing accuracy of the article. They were also relevant to the claim for aggravated damages. The weight to be given to them, particularly if the witnesses did not attend, was for the jury.
4. Where journalists protect their sources, claimants must be permitted to probe and test the defendant’s case, including relevant journalistic evidence in cross-examination, with the thoroughness compatible with preserving the source’s anonymity. Otherwise an anonymous source may acquire an unwarranted appearance of infallibility, causing unfairness.
5. The costs of the two issues argued at the pre-trial review were costs in the case. The abandoned internet-related allegations were to be removed from the pleadings, and the defendant was awarded its costs of and incidental to that part of the claim. Permission to appeal on the meaning and evidence issues was refused.