Murray v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Following acceptance of an offer of amends in defamation proceedings, a claimant may seek permission to read a unilateral statement in open court. The court should permit it unless there is a sufficient reason to refuse. The court should not ordinarily determine the issues that would have arisen had the claim proceeded, or allow a defendant to control the claimant’s statement. Relevant matters may include the interests of the parties, freedom of expression, the purpose of encouraging settlement, and matters relevant to compensation. An oral hearing is exceptional where it would risk continuing proceedings or causing delay.

The claimant brought libel proceedings concerning an article published by the defendant. The defendant subsequently made an unqualified offer of amends under sections 2 to 4 of the Defamation Act 1996, which the claimant accepted. The parties did not agree the steps to be taken in fulfilment of the offer.

The claimant applied on paper for permission under CPR Practice Direction 53 to read a unilateral statement in open court. The defendant objected to aspects of the proposed statement and sought an oral hearing. The central issues were whether the court had jurisdiction to permit the statement, the circumstances in which permission could be refused, and whether the proposed content went beyond the matters resolved by the offer of amends.

1. Application granted. The claimant was permitted to read the unilateral statement in open court in the submitted form. The matter was properly decided on paper.
2. The offer of amends regime did not prevent the claimant from seeking permission to make a unilateral statement. Following Winslet v ANL [2009] EWHC 2735 (QB), the application concerned a separate incident of settling libel proceedings, rather than enforcement of the offer contrary to section 3(2) of the Defamation Act 1996. The guidance in Barnet v Crozier [1987] 1 WLR 272 remained applicable.
3. The jurisdiction to refuse permission should be exercised only where there was a sufficient reason. The court should have regard to the claimant’s freedom of expression under article 10 of the Convention and to the rights of others, including the defendant. It should not ordinarily determine issues that would have arisen in the settled action, since that would undermine the legislative purpose of encouraging settlement.
4. A defendant was entitled under section 3(4) to choose the steps it considered appropriate for its own correction and apology. That did not ordinarily entitle it to control what the claimant said in her unilateral statement. Matters relevant to compensation under section 3(5), including matters potentially relevant to mitigation, could properly be included.
5. An oral hearing on the contents of a unilateral statement should be exceptional. In this case, the objections raised no sufficient reason for refusal, and further directions or argument would cause unjustified delay. The court also found no unfairness arising from possible pleading issues or the statement’s absolute privilege, including because it was not suggested that the statement defamed a third party or the defendant.