Kadir & Anor v Channel S Television Ltd

In assessing libel damages, the court must first determine the defamatory meaning conveyed. General damages compensate injury to reputation and, for an individual, injury to feelings, while also serving to vindicate reputation. The assessment is global and fact-sensitive. Relevant matters include the seriousness of the imputation, the extent and likely audience of publication, the nature and duration of the broadcast, the claimant’s business and reputation, other events causing loss or public concern, and any conduct aggravating the injury. A defendant’s failure to engage properly with the litigation and failure to apologise may aggravate damages for an individual claimant.

The claimants, a money-transfer business and its director, alleged that a Bengali-language television report falsely conveyed that employees of the business were reasonably suspected of fraud, that customers’ money could not be trusted to reach its recipients, and that the director had dealt evasively and incompetently with the situation.

Default judgment had previously been entered for the claimants, with damages and any further remedies left for determination. The defendant sought an adjournment to apply to set aside that judgment, but provided no satisfactory explanation for delay. The application was refused. Following an undertaking not to repeat the defamatory words, the remaining issue was the assessment of general damages.

1. Meaning. The court applied the established principles for determining the defamatory meaning of words. The broadcast meant that individuals working for the business were reasonably suspected of defrauding customers of substantial sums, that the business could not be trusted with customers’ money, and that the director had dealt with the suspicions and failures in a highly evasive and incompetent manner. It conveyed more than that there were merely grounds for investigation.
2. Damages. General damages in defamation aim, so far as money can achieve it, to restore the claimant to the position they would have occupied had the tort not occurred. They compensate harm to reputation and help vindicate it. An individual may also recover for hurt, distress and injury to feelings.
3. The court assessed the damages globally. It considered the seriousness of the allegations, the estimated audience, the concentration of the relevant Bengali-speaking customers within the broadcast area, the dramatic but short-lived nature of the programme, the early stage of the business, and a separate robbery which might also have affected customer confidence. The broadcast nevertheless had a seriously detrimental effect on the business’s trading reputation.
4. The director was not entitled to recover claimed financial consequences which were not proved to the civil standard. His injury to feelings was aggravated by the defendant’s defective conduct of the litigation, its allegation that the claim was frivolous, and its failure to apologise.
5. The defendant’s application for an adjournment to seek to set aside the default judgment was refused. An injunction was unnecessary because of the defendant’s undertaking. Judgment was entered for general damages of £20,000 for each claimant.

The judgment records that on 24 January 2014 Master Eastman entered judgment for the claimants for damages to be assessed and for determination of any further remedies. The defendant’s application for an adjournment to seek to set aside that judgment was refused.