Cairns v Modi

Damages for libel compensate injury to reputation, vindicate the claimant’s good name, and compensate distress, hurt and humiliation. Assessment is fact-specific and proportionate. It may take account of the scale of publication, foreseeable republication or online percolation, the gravity of the allegation, and aggravating conduct which causes further reputational injury or distress.

A reasoned judgment does not generally reduce the need for vindication. Libel damages should normally be assessed as a global sum rather than through rigid bands or separate monetary allocations. Under the offer-of-amends regime in the Defamation Act 1996, the court first assesses ordinary compensatory damages and then gives an appropriate discount for a prompt apology, correction and offer of amends.

These conjoined appeals concerned damages awarded by Bean J in two libel claims.

In Cairns v Modi, [2012] EWHC 756 (QB), the defendant alleged by Twitter and through a cricketing website that the claimant, an international cricketer, had been involved in match fixing. The allegation was held unjustified. The judge awarded £90,000, including £15,000 for aggravation arising from the conduct of the trial. The defendant’s liability appeal had already been refused permission.

In KC v MGN Ltd, [2012] EWHC 483 (QB), a newspaper falsely stated that the anonymised claimant had been convicted of raping a child. Following a prompt apology and an accepted offer of amends, the judge assessed compensation under Defamation Act 1996 s.3(5) at £75,000.

The central issues were the proper assessment of libel damages, including vindication and publication, and the effect of anonymity and a prompt offer of amends.

1. The appeal in Cairns v Modi was dismissed. The £90,000 award was proportionate. Compensatory libel damages serve the interlocking purposes identified in John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586: compensation for reputational damage, vindication, and distress, hurt and humiliation.

2. The judge was entitled to take account of the likely percolation of a serious allegation beyond the approximately 65 immediate recipients of the tweet. Modern internet and social-media communications make onward dissemination especially material where the claimant is already in the public eye. The conduct of the trial could also increase compensatory damages where it caused additional injury to feelings or reputation.

3. A claimant does not ordinarily require less vindication merely because a judge has given a reasoned judgment. Whether the judgment itself supplies sufficient vindication is fact-specific. Here, the widespread reporting of the trial and the sustained attack on the claimant’s character justified an award of sufficient magnitude to vindicate him publicly. The separate £15,000 aggravation element was properly awarded.

4. The court rejected a rigid, Vento-style analytical allocation of libel damages. The varied combination of reputational injury, vindication and distress ordinarily calls for a global assessment after all relevant factors have been weighed.

5. The appeal in KC v MGN Ltd was allowed. Compensation under the offer-of-amends regime is assessed on the same principles as common-law libel damages. The usual approach is to identify the damages that would otherwise have been awarded and then apply an appropriate reduction for the offer, correction and apology.

6. The judge gave insufficient weight to the claimant’s continuing anonymity and therefore to the limited number of readers likely to identify him. The newspaper’s overall circulation did not represent the effective scale of publication to him. The proper starting figure was £100,000. The unchallenged 50% discount for the prompt offer of amends and apology was appropriate, producing an award of £50,000.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In Cairns v Modi [2012] EWCA Civ 1382, dismissed the defendant’s appeal against a £90,000 damages award. In KC v MGN Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1382, allowed the newspaper’s appeal and reduced compensation to £50,000.

• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Bean J awarded £90,000 in Cairns v Modi [2012] EWHC 756 (QB). He awarded £75,000 under the offer-of-amends procedure in KC v MGN Ltd [2012] EWHC 483 (QB).