Angel v Stainton & Anor

Compensation under the statutory offer of amends procedure is assessed in two stages. The court first identifies the damages that would have been awarded at trial without aggravation or mitigation. It then adjusts that figure for the offer, apology, correction and other relevant conduct.

An early, unqualified offer normally produces substantial mitigation. The reduction may be smaller where the offer is delayed, the defendant adopts an equivocal or hostile stance, or the claimant remains exposed to anxiety and threatened attacks on character. The gravity of the allegation, its impact on feelings and reputation, the scale and identity of publication, and the need for vindication remain relevant.

The claimant brought a libel claim against Adrian Stainton and Repaircraft plc concerning a letter alleging that he had received a custodial sentence for selling goods to inappropriate recipients. The letter was sent to persons involved in the receivership and proposed acquisition of a defence business, including government, banking and firearms authorities.

The defendants eventually made and the claimant accepted an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. The court was required to determine compensation under the statutory procedure, particularly the effect of the delay, the defendants’ conduct and the limited but potentially damaging publication.

1. Assessment method. Compensation under section 3(5) of the Defamation Act 1996 required a two-stage assessment. The court first fixed the sum that would have been awarded after a hypothetical trial without aggravating or mitigating conduct. It then assessed the reduction attributable to the offer of amends and related steps.
2. First stage. The allegation of conviction and imprisonment for serious criminal conduct was grave. The court considered the claimant’s distress and hurt feelings, presumed and actual reputational injury, the limited scale of publication, the importance of the publishees, and the need for vindication. The appropriate starting figure was £40,000.
3. Second stage. An early, unqualified offer, apology and correction will ordinarily produce substantial mitigation. The reduction depends on the facts. Here the offer was made only on the last day before the defence was due. The defendants’ equivocal correspondence, delay, continuing uncertainty about an attack on the claimant’s character and aggravating conduct made the mitigation less substantial. A 40% reduction was appropriate.
4. Disposition. The court awarded the claimant £24,000 compensation. The statutory process had been completed and the terms of the open-court statement agreed, but no greater reduction was justified.