Veliu v Mazrekaj & Anor

Where one defendant accepts an offer of amends under Defamation Act 1996 and another remains liable for the same libel, the court must assess one overall sum without double counting.

The statutory defendant receives a discount reflecting the conciliatory effect of the offer and any apology. That discount is defendant-specific. Compensation for aggravation must generally reflect only conduct for which all liable defendants are responsible, applying the lowest common denominator. An apology must be taken into account for each defendant to the extent that it mitigates the claimant’s loss.

The claimant sued the owner and editor of a newspaper over a grave allegation that he was involved in the July 2005 London bombings. The first defendant made an unqualified offer of amends, accepted by the claimant. Judgment in default was entered against the second defendant, with damages to be assessed.

The court had to reconcile compensation under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1996 with common-law damages against the other defendant, while avoiding double recovery and determining the appropriate treatment of aggravating and mitigating conduct.

1. Applicable framework. Compensation under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1996 involves two stages. The court first fixes a notional trial award without significant aggravation or mitigation. It then applies a discount reflecting the offer of amends and any apology. The modern approach to libel damages and the conciliatory purpose of the procedure are relevant.
2. There can be only one sum of damages or compensation for one libel. Defendants responsible for the same publication are jointly and severally liable for the whole damage, subject to the statutory limits. The first defendant’s liability was capped by section 3(8) of the 1996 Act, but the overall compensation could be higher.
3. Aggravating conduct must generally be assessed by the lowest common denominator. Conduct attributable only to one defendant should not increase the overall compensation recoverable from all defendants. However, defendant-specific aggravation may be relevant when fixing that defendant’s individual offer-of-amends discount.
4. Mitigation arising from a published apology must be taken into account in assessing the liability of each defendant, even where the apology was published by only one of them. The court must avoid giving credit to one defendant while assessing the other on the assumption that no apology existed.
5. Applying those principles, the court fixed the first defendant’s notional starting point at £180,000 and applied a one-third discount, awarding £120,000 under section 3. The overall compensation for which the second defendant was liable was fixed at £175,000, with the first defendant jointly and severally liable subject to the statutory maximum.

First-instance decision. The judgment itself does not state any subsequent appellate history.