Gale v Scannella

In a defamation claim settled under the Offer of Amends procedure, compensation is assessed in two stages. The court first assesses general damages on ordinary principles, considering the gravity of the allegation, extent of publication, and proved harm. It then applies an appropriate discount for the correction and apology, while avoiding double-counting. An accepted offer concedes serious harm, but the claimant must still prove the extent of publication and the harm attributable to it. A defendant may firmly challenge quantum without losing the benefit of the procedure. However, an unsubstantiated allegation of dishonesty is aggravating conduct and may reduce the discount. The assessment remains broad and holistic.

The claimant brought defamation proceedings concerning four pseudonymous Twitter publications which suggested that he had engaged in repeated sexual misconduct towards women and children and had been removed from a football club for that reason. The defendant accepted responsibility and made an Offer of Amends under sections 2 and 3 of the Defamation Act 1996. The correction and apology were accepted and published, but the parties did not agree compensation.

The court determined compensation under section 3(5), applying the principles governing damages in defamation proceedings. The central issues were the extent of publication, the harm caused, the effect of the claimant’s later criminal conviction and conduct, the defendant’s allegation that the compensation claim was dishonest, and the appropriate Offer of Amends discount.

1. Disposition. Compensation was assessed at £8,000. The starting award was £15,000, reduced to £12,000 to reflect the claimant’s conduct towards his partner and subsequent conviction for domestic violence. A one-third Offer of Amends discount was then applied.
2. Assessment. Under section 3(5) of the Defamation Act 1996, compensation is determined on the same principles as damages in defamation proceedings, taking account of steps taken under the offer. The court first assesses general damages and then applies any appropriate discount, avoiding double-counting. Discounts may be substantial, up to 50%, but depend on all the circumstances.
3. Publication and harm. The tweets contained grave allegations of sexual impropriety, abuse of power and safeguarding risk. Publication to 16 addressed accounts was undisputed. The pseudonymous form and local dispute created a grapevine effect, but the evidence established only modest to moderate local circulation. The claimant proved natural hurt, distress, humiliation and reputational damage amounting to serious harm, but not that the tweets were a significantly operative cause of his wider difficulties.
4. Dishonesty. Failure to prove the full extent of a claim, or exaggeration, did not establish fraud. A party alleging dishonesty bears a high burden and must prove calculated falsification or reckless disregard for truth. Where an objectively probable alternative explanation exists, dishonesty must be shown to be more probable. That burden was not discharged.
5. Offer of Amends. The procedure permits a firm challenge to quantum, including publication and harm, provided the defendant does not deny the serious harm intrinsic to the offer. The unsupported dishonesty allegation was aggravating conduct and justified withholding part of the maximum discount.