Cairns v Modi

In a defamation claim alleging match-fixing, the civil standard remains the balance of probabilities, but serious allegations require appropriately careful consideration and evidence of sufficient quality. Hearsay evidence must be assessed under the Civil Evidence Act 1995, including the reliability of the source and whether the maker could reasonably have been called.

Damages for a libel affecting professional integrity must reflect gravity, publication, reputational harm, distress and the need for vindication. A defendant’s sustained and aggressive pursuit of an unsupported justification defence may aggravate damages.

The claimant, a distinguished international cricketer, sued the defendant for publishing a Twitter statement and a Cricinfo statement alleging, or strongly suggesting, that he had engaged in match-fixing. The defendant pleaded justification and relied principally on hearsay evidence from former players and investigators.

The central issues were whether the claimant had fixed matches or whether there were strong grounds for suspecting that he had done so, and the appropriate damages if the defence failed.

1. Claim succeeded. The court found that the publications bore meanings alleging that the claimant had fixed matches, or that there were strong grounds for suspecting such conduct. The defendant failed to prove either meaning was substantially true.
2. The applicable standard was the balance of probabilities. Serious allegations and serious consequences require careful examination and sufficiently strong evidence, but they do not create a heightened civil standard. The court followed the approach stated in Re D [2008] 1 WLR 1499, approving the observations in R(N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) [2006] QB 468.
3. Under s 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995, the weight of hearsay depends on circumstances bearing on reliability. Relevant matters included whether the maker could reasonably have been called, contemporaneity, multiple hearsay, motives to misrepresent, and whether the evidence had been shaped for litigation.
4. The principal allegations were inconsistent, delayed, unsupported or hearsay. The court rejected the evidence of Gupta and Sharma, treated TP Singh as wholly unreliable, attached no weight to the hearsay accounts of Uniyal and Ablish, and found that Karanveer Singh’s evidence did not establish the defence. The claimant’s injury and Dubai payments did not provide reliable evidence of match-fixing.
5. Damages were assessed by reference to the gravity of the libel, its limited but real publication, injury to reputation, distress and vindication. Applying the principles in John v MGN [1997] QB 586, and taking account of the aggravating conduct identified in Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers [1994] QB 670, the court awarded £90,000, including approximately 20 per cent for the sustained and aggressive assertion of justification. An injunction was also granted, with terms to be submitted.