Ronaldo v Telegraph Media Group Ltd

A settlement with one publisher does not ordinarily extinguish a claimant’s separate libel claim against another publisher for a related publication. Each publication constitutes a separate tort, and damages must reflect the distinct harm caused, subject to avoiding double recovery under section 12 of the Defamation Act 1952.

The Jameel abuse jurisdiction requires an assessment of the real value of the vindication, compensation and other relief available on the facts. A widely published allegation which may seriously damage reputation and remains defended as true is not trivial merely because another publisher has apologised and paid damages. A late application to strike out should generally be made promptly, although exceptional circumstances may justify delay.

Cristiano Ronaldo sued the publisher of the Daily Telegraph over articles alleging that, shortly after ankle surgery, he had behaved unprofessionally by partying, drinking and dancing without his crutches. The publication was substantial, reaching a probable readership of more than one million.

Ronaldo had brought a separate libel claim against the Daily Mirror concerning related allegations. That action settled for £25,000, costs and a statement in open court in which the Mirror accepted that its allegations were untrue. The Telegraph continued to plead justification and applied shortly before trial for the action to be stayed as an abuse of process, relying on the Jameel jurisdiction.

The central issue was whether the Mirror settlement and its subsequent reporting had removed any legitimate purpose or sufficient value in continuing the claim against the Telegraph.

1. Application refused. The Telegraph action was not an abuse of the process of the court and should proceed to trial.
2. Libel damages are compensatory. They address injury to reputation, vindication and injury to feelings. The gravity of the allegation, extent of publication, need for vindication and the defendant’s conduct, including any failure to apologise, may be relevant to the assessment and to aggravated damages.
3. Separate publications by different publishers are separate torts. A claimant may sue separately where the publications, readerships or conduct of the publishers require separate consideration. Section 12 of the Defamation Act 1952 prevents double recovery, but does not deprive the claimant of compensation for the distinct harm caused by each publication. The authorities in Dingle and Lewis showed that liability and damages cannot sensibly depend on which newspaper is sued first.
4. The Jameel jurisdiction requires consideration of the true value of the vindication available on the facts. The Telegraph article had been published to a very large readership, the alleged unprofessional conduct was capable of being serious, and the Telegraph continued to maintain justification. The Mirror settlement therefore could not be presumed to compensate for the Telegraph publication or to provide complete vindication against it.
5. Hays was materially different. It concerned a corporate claimant with no engaged article 8 right, limited publication by an intermediary, full vindication from the originators and newspaper, and no realistic prospect of further compensation or injunctive relief. Those features were absent here.
6. The court declined to adopt a general rule making the Jameel jurisdiction more readily applicable to reported speech. Issues concerning reportage and freedom of expression were ordinarily matters for a substantive defence, and the Telegraph’s Reynolds defence had been abandoned. Although a late abuse application may exceptionally be justified, such applications should generally be made as soon as possible.