Oyston & Anor v Ragozzino

Damages for defamation must be proportionate and assessed by reference to the seriousness of the allegations, the extent of publication, their impact, the claimant’s reputation and the need for vindication.

A corporate claimant may recover substantial general damages for vindication even without proof of financial loss, although the award should remain modest where the defamatory connection is ill-defined. Aggravated damages are unavailable to corporate claimants, but may be awarded to individuals where malice or litigation conduct aggravates the harm.

Relevant general reputation evidence may reduce damages. Specific misconduct is generally inadmissible, subject to recognised exceptions, including directly relevant background and relevant unspent convictions.

The claimants, Karl Oyston, Owen Oyston and Blackpool Football Club Limited, brought claims arising from defamatory internet postings by David Ragozzino. The postings alleged sexual misconduct, fraud and corruption. The defendant’s defence had been struck out and he had subsequently consented to judgment, leaving the court to assess damages.

The court considered the appropriate damages for the two individual claimants and the corporate claimant, including publication, distress, reputation, malice, vindication and alleged commercial loss. It also determined an application concerning anonymisation of two football players.

1. Damages for defamation. The court applied the need for proportionality in libel awards, considering the nature and extent of publication, the need for vindication and the absence of any requirement for a detailed breakdown of the award, as discussed in Cairns v Modi [2012] EWCA Civ 1383.
2. Individual claimants. The allegations were extremely serious and entitled Karl Oyston and Owen Oyston to substantial damages by way of vindication. Owen Oyston’s damages were reduced significantly because his unspent convictions gave him a general bad reputation concerning sexual conduct. That reduction did not justify nominal damages, since he remained entitled to vindication for the specific defamatory allegations. Both individuals were entitled to aggravated damages because the defendant had acted maliciously and had conducted the proceedings in an aggravating manner.
3. Corporate claimant. Following Applause Store Productions v Raphael [2008] EWHC 1721, the company could recover substantial general damages despite the absence of proved financial loss, because vindication remained relevant. The award was modest because the alleged connection with the sexual allegations was ill-defined. The company could not recover damages for distress suffered by employees, and, applying Eaton Mansions (Westminster) Ltd v Stinger [2013] EWCA Civ 1308, could not receive aggravated damages.
4. Assessment factors. The court applied the reasoning concerning the reduced credibility of anonymous, obsessive and inherently unconvincing allegations in Oriental Daily Publisher v Ming Pao Holdings [2013] EMLR 7 and Appleyard v Wilby [2014] EWHC 2770 (QB). It also applied Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 579 in rejecting evidence of misconduct that was neither directly relevant to the subject matter of the defamation nor to the relevant sector of the claimant’s reputation.
5. Orders. Damages were assessed at £20,000 for Karl Oyston, £20,000 for Owen Oyston and £1,000 for Blackpool Football Club Limited. The names of the two football players were ordered to be anonymised under CPR 39.2(4), and access to the particulars of claim was restricted under CPR 5.4C pending anonymisation.