Harrath v Stand for Peace Ltd & Anor

In a serious libel claim, compensatory damages must be proportionate and should provide convincing vindication of the claimant’s reputation. The assessment should begin by reference to the notional upper bracket for libel awards, currently around £300,000, while recognising that an allegation of terrorism will ordinarily attract an award towards the upper end of the scale. The court should then evaluate the extent and duration of publication, the seriousness and persistence of the allegation, any defence of truth, apology or withdrawal, and the parties’ conduct. The damages are not determined by readership numbers alone. A stated estimate in the claim form does not limit the court’s power to award the sum properly recoverable under CPR 16.3(7).

The claimant sued the defendants over an article on the first defendant’s website stating that he was a convicted terrorist. Judgment had previously been entered for the claimant after the defendants failed to comply with an order for payment of costs, leaving the court to assess compensatory damages.

The claimant relied on evidence demonstrating that the allegation was false and sought damages for injury to reputation, embarrassment, hurt feelings and vindication. The issues included the seriousness of the allegation, the extent and duration of publication, aggravating and mitigating conduct, the relevance of a purported Tunisian conviction, and whether the amount claimed in the claim form limited the award.

1. Assessment and outcome. The claimant was entitled to compensation and vindication because the allegation that he was a terrorist was seriously defamatory and unsupported by the evidence. The appropriate award was £140,000.
2. Foreign conviction. The allegation meant that the claimant was guilty of terrorism. A conviction in a foreign court could not prove that allegation in the libel action. That contrasted with Civil Evidence Act 1968, s 13, under which an English conviction could prove guilt of a criminal offence in a libel action.
3. Ceiling and seriousness. Libel damages should be assessed by reference to a notional upper bracket or ceiling in order to maintain proportionality. The current upper limit was approximately £300,000, taking account of inflation and the uplift discussed in Simmons v Castle [2013] 1 WLR 1239. An allegation of terrorism ordinarily warranted an award towards the upper end of the scale.
4. Relevant factors. The court considered the extent of publication, the period for which the words remained available, the defendants’ persistence in a truth defence, the absence of an apology or prompt withdrawal, the combative conduct of the defendants and the claimant’s limited contribution to the pre-litigation dispute. The exercise was not merely a numbers game, although readership and dissemination remained relevant.
5. Procedural limit. The figure stated in the claim form did not limit the court’s jurisdiction to award the amount the claimant was entitled to recover under CPR 16.3(7).

The judgment itself states that judgment had previously been entered for the claimant by Master Kay QC. The damages assessment followed that order.