Creative Resins International Ltd v Glasslam Europe Ltd & Ors

Publication of defamatory allegations to a commercially relevant audience is not merely technical where the readers include people likely to deal with the claimant. A corporate claimant may recover substantial, though proportionate, general damages to compensate for harm to reputation and to vindicate it, even without proof of specific financial loss. Damages are assessed by reference to publication within the jurisdiction and the seriousness, persistence and reach of the allegations. Qualified privilege requires a duty or legitimate interest corresponding to the publication; widespread publication lacking that justification is outside the privilege. Any privilege is defeated where the publication is knowingly or recklessly false and malicious.

The claimant, a company producing equipment, processes and raw materials for decorative glass panels, sued three defendants in libel. The second defendant had left the proceedings, and the first defendant settled. The remaining defendant, who lived in the United States, chose not to participate.

The claim concerned an article published on a website and in a trade magazine. It alleged that the claimant had committed copyright infringement, had been sued for substantial damages in Germany, and had ignored a German court order. The issues included meaning, defamatory tendency, extent of publication, qualified privilege, malice and damages.

1. Liability. The words complained of bore the pleaded meanings: that the claimant had committed flagrant copyright infringement, prompting a €500,000 damages claim in Germany, and had deliberately ignored a German court order. Those meanings were seriously defamatory.
2. Publication. The publication in England was not purely technical. The article appeared in hard copy and online and was likely to have been read by persons involved in the glass industry who might deal commercially with the claimant. The case was therefore materially different from the circumstances considered in Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones, as referred to by the court.
3. Truth and privilege. The allegations were false. No proceedings had been brought in Germany, no German court had supported evidence or made an order, and the claimant had not breached or refused to comply with any order. The defendant's plea of qualified privilege failed because there was no duty or legitimate interest justifying publication on the widespread scale adopted. In any event, any privilege would have been defeated by malice: the publication was knowingly false, cynical and dishonest.
4. Damages. The claimant was entitled to general damages confined to publication in England. As a corporate claimant it had no injured feelings, but damages served to compensate reputational harm and vindicate its standing. Proof of actual financial loss was unnecessary. The court awarded £15,000.
5. Orders. Judgment was entered against the third defendant for £15,000. The claimant received £45,000 on account of costs, with detailed assessment on the indemnity basis. An injunction was to be drafted for approval, subject to jurisdictional limitations.

The judgment is a first-instance decision. The court recorded that the second defendant had left the litigation and that the first defendant had settled its part of the claim by a statement in open court and a Tomlin order. The remaining claim against the third defendant proceeded in his absence.