Tamiz v Guardian News & Media Ltd

In a libel claim, summary judgment or strike-out may be appropriate where the claimant has no realistic prospect of obtaining meaningful relief and no compelling reason requires a trial. A claimant’s consent to, or acquiescence in, publication is a complete defence. An allegation about a person’s attitude, inferred from statements attributed to that person, may be comment rather than fact and therefore incapable of proof. The court may also treat proceedings as an abuse where the likely damages are minimal, the claimant has delayed, the complaint has changed, and a trial would yield no tangible or legitimate advantage. Limitation applies separately to publications outside the statutory period.

The claimant brought a libel action concerning amended versions of two Guardian online items and material accessible through hyperlinks to an Evening Standard article. The defendant applied under CPR 3.4 and CPR 24.2 for strike-out and summary judgment. The principal issues were limitation, whether the alleged meanings were comment, consent, prospects of success and abuse of process. The court proceeded on the assumption, without deciding the legal issue, that the hyperlinked material formed part of the words complained of.

1. Limitation. Under section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980, a libel action had to be commenced within one year of publication. Claims concerning publications before 21 February 2012 were statute barred and were struck out.
2. Comment. An allegation that a claimant is misogynistic or sexist, inferred from comments attributed to him, is a value judgment incapable of proof and is therefore capable only of being comment.
3. Consent and acquiescence. The claimant had expressly agreed to the amended wording and its footnote. He knew of the continuing hyperlink and at least acquiesced in its publication. Consent or acquiescence was a complete defence to the libel claim.
4. Prospects and abuse. The claimant’s admitted and apologised-for comments materially undermined the alleged distinction between those comments and the Facebook-group allegation. Any recoverable damages would be minimal at best, with further reduction required for partial justification, relevant background and compensation received in settlement of the Evening Standard claim under section 12 of the Defamation Act 1952. The delay, changing complaint, prior agreement, correction, apology and absence of any realistic tangible advantage from a trial made continuation an abuse of process under the approach in Jameel v Dow Jones and Co [2005] EWCA Civ 75.
5. The court did not decide the meaning issue or whether hyperlinking constituted publication. The claim was struck out and/or summary judgment was entered for the defendant.