Ghannouchi v Middle East Online Ltd & Anor

In assessing damages for defamation, the court must confine the award to the defamatory meanings pleaded and established by the judgment or admission. It must assess a single global sum which compensates for reputational harm, vindicates the claimant’s good name, and accounts for distress, hurt and humiliation.

The assessment is evaluative rather than an arithmetical calculation. Relevant considerations include the gravity of the allegation, the extent and nature of publication, the claimant’s reputation, the credibility of the publisher, duration, possible percolation, mitigating matters and the effect of any judgment summary or apology. The award must remain proportionate to the harm and to the legitimate protection of reputation.

The claimant, a Tunisian politician and leader of Ennahdha, sued the publishers and editor of an online Arabic-language article. The article alleged that he falsely pretended to believe in democracy while leading a party connected with terrorism, and that he knowingly permitted receipt of foreign funding contrary to Tunisian law.

The defendants did not defend the claim. Nicklin J entered default judgment and ordered undertakings, including removal of the article and publication of a composite summary. The matter was transferred to the Master for assessment of damages. The central issues were the proper scope of the pleaded defamatory meanings and the appropriate compensatory award.

1. Scope of the default judgment. The defendants’ consent to default judgment established the pleaded defamatory meanings and serious harm, but only those meanings. The claimant could not enlarge the case at the damages stage by adding allegations of personal involvement in terrorism, actual knowledge of terrorist activity, or involvement in particular bombings. Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2020] 4 WLR 25 supported that procedural limitation.
2. Construction of the terrorism meaning. The pleaded allegation did not mean that the claimant himself was a terrorist or personally participated in terrorism. In context, however, “falsely pretends” conveyed deliberate blindness: he was said to be shutting his eyes to the possibility that his party was a front for a terrorist organisation and tolerated, supported and encouraged terrorism, while choosing not to investigate or act.
3. Applicable damages principles. The award had three connected functions: compensation for reputational damage, vindication of the claimant’s good name, and compensation for distress, hurt and humiliation. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the allegations, extent and duration of publication, the claimant’s reputation, the credibility of the publisher, possible percolation, and the effect of any apology or judgment summary. The exercise required a single global figure, not an analytical calculation.
4. Publication and percolation. Although the article was accessed on fewer than 200 occasions and there was no pleaded republication, the possibility that grave allegations would spread indirectly could properly be considered. The award also had to provide a sufficiently clear headline figure to vindicate the claimant, particularly as the agreed publication of judgment summaries was not equivalent to an apology.
5. Other publications and mitigation. Section 12 of the Defamation Act 1952 did not apply because there was no evidence that the claimant had recovered damages, brought another action, or received compensation for publications to the same effect. Potential contribution claims against other publishers did not reduce the claimant’s recovery.
6. Disposition. Taking account of the grave allegations, limited readership, percolation risk, comparative awards and proportionality, damages were assessed at £45,000. The claim for aggravated damages was not pursued because of the undertaking to publish summaries under section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013.

The judgment itself records no appeal. It followed a default judgment entered by Nicklin J on 24 April 2020, with assessment of damages reserved to the Master.