Barron & Ors v Collins (Rev 1)

Compensation following acceptance of an offer of amends is assessed on the same principles as damages for libel. The ordinary approach is to identify the damages that would have been awarded without the offer and then apply an appropriate discount.

The discount depends on the promptness and quality of the correction and apology, and on the defendant’s subsequent conduct. A complete failure to publish any correction or apology substantially reduces the benefit of the offer. Aggravation occurring before the offer is reflected at the first stage; later aggravation may reduce the discount and, in an extreme case, increase the award. Political defendants and claimants may require special consideration under Article 10, but political publication does not remove the need for substantial compensation where serious allegations cause reputational harm.

The claimants, three Labour MPs, sued the defendant, a UKIP MEP, over defamatory allegations made in a party-conference speech concerning child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. Following the court’s determination of meaning in [2015] EWHC 1125 (QB), the defendant made an unqualified offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. The claimants accepted it, but the defendant did not publish a correction or apology.

The claimants therefore applied under the statutory machinery for assessment of compensation. The central issues were the appropriate damages for the slander and libel, the effect of the delayed offer, and the extent to which the defendant’s subsequent conduct reduced or eliminated the discount.

1. Applicable approach. Compensation after acceptance of an offer of amends is assessed on the same principles as damages for libel under section 3(5) of the Defamation Act 1996. The court ordinarily first assesses the award absent the offer and then discounts it to reflect the offer’s mitigating effect.
2. Assessment of the first-stage award. Damages must compensate injury to reputation, vindicate the claimant’s good name, and compensate distress, hurt and humiliation. Gravity, extent of publication, the need for vindication, and the defendant’s conduct are relevant. The allegations here attacked the claimants’ integrity as public representatives and had been widely disseminated. The court rejected the suggestion that publication to political opponents could not cause serious reputational harm.
3. Offer of amends. A prompt and unqualified offer followed by a prompt, fulsome correction and apology will ordinarily attract a substantial discount. The discount may be reduced where the offer is delayed, the correction or apology is inadequate, or the defendant acts inconsistently with the conciliatory purpose of the offer. The complete failure to publish any correction or apology substantially reduced the discount. The offer nevertheless settled liability and provided some benefit, so a residual discount remained appropriate.
4. Aggravation and procedural limits. Aggravation occurring before the offer belongs in the first-stage assessment. Later aggravation may reduce the second-stage discount and, in an extreme case, may justify an increase in the first-stage figure. New points on quantum should not normally be introduced after acceptance of the offer unless properly pleaded or raised in good time. Later conduct may be considered where reliance on it has been adequately indicated before the assessment hearing.
5. Outcome. Separate awards were made for slander and libel: £10,000 and £50,000 respectively before the discount. A 10 per cent residual discount was applied, producing a total award of £54,000 to each claimant.