Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd. & Anor

In an assessment of compensation under section 3(5) of the Defamation Act 1996, the court applies the ordinary principles governing libel damages. Evidence of specific facts may be admitted as directly relevant background context where it illuminates the subject matter of the defamatory publication or the claimant’s alleged injury. A defendant need not always establish a direct causal link between that context and the publication.

The assessment proceeds in two stages: first, the amount that would have been awarded absent aggravation or mitigation; secondly, the appropriate reduction for the offer of amends and apology. Legitimate reliance on background material does not automatically aggravate the claimant’s injury. The objective question is whether the defendant acted improperly or introduced irrelevant or scandalous material.

The claimant sued over an article in the News of the World which, although he was not named, referred to him through a photograph of his former wife. He alleged that the article portrayed him as involved in swinging and wife-swapping, and as having pressured her to have sex with other men.

The first defendant made an unqualified offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. The issue was the compensation payable under section 3(5), including whether evidence about the parties’ sexual activities, the former wife’s modelling career, and the claimant’s later press publicity constituted admissible background context and whether the defendant’s conduct affected the discount.

1. Assessment structure. The court assessed compensation in two stages. It first fixed the sum that would have been awarded at trial without aggravating or mitigating conduct. It then applied an appropriate discount for the offer of amends, apology and other mitigating matters.
2. Admissible context. Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 57 relaxed the strict rule in Scott v Sampson (1882) 8 QBD 491 by permitting evidence of directly relevant background context. The concept is narrower than the proposed statutory wording considered in Burstein. A direct causal link between the background facts and the publication is not invariably required.
3. The parties’ attendance at the Coventry club and the former wife’s explicit modelling activities were relevant context to the allegation that the claimant had pressured her to have sex with men. His earlier publicity about the breakdown of the marriage was relevant to the extent to which he valued privacy and would suffer hurt from tabloid exposure.
4. Material introduced after an offer of amends may incidentally hurt the claimant without aggravating compensation. The objective question is whether the defendant acted reasonably and within the permissible scope of the process, rather than whether the claimant felt distressed. Improper attempts to introduce irrelevant or scandalous material might justify reducing or eliminating the discount, but that case is likely to be rare.
5. Following Nail v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1708, there are no fixed rules governing the size of the discount. The starting figure was £15,000. The defendant’s initial delay, maintenance of the truth of the allegations and shortcomings in the apology reduced the credit available, but the defendant had not acted improperly after making the offer. A discount of 40 per cent was appropriate, producing compensation of £9,000, inclusive of the website publication.

First instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.