Al- Amoudi v Kifle

In assessing libel damages, the court must determine the natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader, avoiding both naïve and unduly suspicious readings and over-elaborate analysis.

General damages compensate distress, injury to reputation and the need for vindication. The award must remain proportionate to those legitimate aims under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Gravity, extent of publication, the claimant’s standing, personal distress, and the defendant’s conduct are material factors. A reasoned judgment may contribute to vindication, but its effect is limited where liability was entered in default and the defendant continues to assert the truth of the libel.

The claimant, an international businessman with substantial connections to the United Kingdom, brought a libel claim against the publisher of an online news site. The defendant failed to acknowledge service and did not participate in the proceedings.

Judgment in default had been entered, with damages to be assessed. The article alleged that the claimant had arranged his daughter’s marriage to an elderly Saudi royal, financed terrorism, ordered the murder of her alleged lover, and pursued her and her daughter to secure their execution. The issues were the meanings conveyed, the extent and impact of publication, and the appropriate award of general damages.

1. Meaning. The court applied the natural and ordinary meaning test for the ordinary reasonable reader. The reader is neither naïve nor unduly suspicious, may read between the lines and engage in some loose thinking, but is not avid for scandal. The court should avoid over-elaborate or excessively literal analysis. The article conveyed that the claimant had married off his 13-year-old daughter as a gift to symbolise friendship with the Saudi royal family.
2. The article did not convey, in its primary meaning, that the claimant had definitely and directly funded terrorist groups. Its wording instead conveyed that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that he had knowingly financed international terrorism. The article did convey that he was probably responsible for the murder and mutilation of his daughter’s alleged lover, and that he was hunting his daughter and granddaughter in order to secure their execution.
3. Publication and injury. Publication was available to a substantial Ethiopian community in the United Kingdom, and the evidence justified an inference of several thousand readers. The allegations were exceptionally grave and closely touched the claimant’s personal integrity, family life and business reputation. The defendant’s repetition of the allegations, refusal to apologise and abusive conduct aggravated the injury and distress.
4. Damages. General damages serve as consolation, compensation and vindication. The award must be proportionate to those purposes under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Vindication was especially important, but the reasoned judgment provided only marginal additional vindication because liability had been entered in default and the defendant continued to assert the truth of the allegations.
5. The claimant’s standing, the gravity of the libel, the extent of publication, his distress and the defendant’s conduct were taken into account. Previous awards could provide assistance, although first-instance comparators were rarely helpful unless their facts were almost on all fours. The proper award was £175,000.

1. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): judgment in default was previously entered, with damages to be assessed. The court assessed general damages at £175,000.