Cruddas v Adams

Libel damages are compensatory, not punitive. The court may nevertheless take aggravating conduct into account when selecting a sum within the appropriate compensatory range. The award must remain proportionate and no greater than necessary to compensate injury to reputation, provide vindication and afford solatium for distress and hurt feelings. In assessing vindication, the court should consider the gravity, extent and repetition of the publication, including publication through social media. A single award may properly cover multiple publications and related causes of action where separate awards would be artificial or confusing.

The claimant, a prominent businessman and former political party treasurer, obtained judgment in default against the defendant over nine blogs and 12 tweets alleging that he was a criminal who had breached the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The hearing concerned the assessment of damages and the effect of the defendant’s late apology, removal of publications and continued refusal to acknowledge their falsity. The central issues were the proper compensatory purposes of libel damages, the relevance of aggravating conduct and vindication, and the proportionate level of a single award.

1. The claim having proceeded to judgment in default, the court assessed damages at £45,000. The award was intended to vindicate the claimant’s reputation and compensate him for reputational injury, distress and hurt feelings.

2. Libel damages are compensatory and not punitive. Within the appropriate compensatory range, however, the court may take account of conduct which aggravates the injury. The defendant’s prolonged campaign, repeated publication, refusal to withdraw the allegations after learning the relevant evidence, failure to publicise information undermining his allegations and late apology materially reduced the mitigating effect of his later conduct: [1972] AC 1027.

3. The award must be proportionate and no greater than necessary to achieve the legitimate purposes of compensation. Those purposes overlap and comprise compensation for injury to reputation, convincing bystanders of the baselessness of the charge through vindication, and solatium for distress and hurt feelings. The court should select the minimum figure necessary in all the circumstances: [1997] QB 586; [2012] EWCA Civ 1382.

4. Repeated publication and consequent publicity on social media may substantially increase the damage. The speed and breadth of modern online communication are relevant to the assessment of vindication and reputational harm: [2012] EWCA Civ 1382.

5. A single sum was appropriate for all the publications. It would have been artificial and confusing to award separate sums for the different publications or causes of action: [1982] QB 47.