KC v MGN Ltd

Compensation following an accepted offer of amends in a defamation claim should be assessed in two stages. First, the court assesses the sum that would have been awarded after a trial without significant aggravation or mitigation. Secondly, it applies the reduction justified by the defendant’s apology, admission and use of the offer of amends procedure. These matters must not reduce the award at both stages. The first-stage assessment remains compensatory and reflects the gravity and reach of the libel, its effect on reputation and feelings, and the need for vindication. An apology should ordinarily produce substantial mitigation. A 50 per cent reduction was appropriate on the facts.

The claimant, the father of Peter Connelly, brought a defamation claim against the publisher of The People. The newspaper falsely stated that he was a sex offender and had been convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl. The defendant made an offer of amends under section 2 of the Defamation Act 1996, which the claimant accepted. The parties agreed the offer procedure and publication of an apology, but could not agree compensation. The central issue was whether the apology and admission of liability should affect the first-stage figure as well as the second-stage discount.

1. Two-stage assessment. The court applied the approach identified in Turner v MGN [2005] EMLR 25, approved on appeal in [2006] 1 WLR 3469, and reflected in Nail v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2005] 1 All ER 1040. Stage one required assessment after a hypothetical trial without significant aggravation or mitigation. Stage two required a discount for mitigating matters, including the accepted offer of amends and apology.
2. The apology and admission could not be taken into account at both stages. Doing so would produce a double discount.
3. At stage one, the court considered the gravity of the allegation, circulation and readership, the effect on reputation and feelings, and vindication. The allegation was exceptionally grave. The first-stage figure was £150,000. The assessment was compensatory, not punitive, and earlier awards required updating for inflation.
4. The clear, unqualified and prominent apology, together with the defendant’s conduct in negotiations, justified a 50 per cent stage-two discount. A discount greater than 50 per cent would ordinarily risk encouraging defendants to publish defamatory allegations while treating an apology as an easy escape.
5. Compensation was assessed at £75,000.