Mirza v Farooqui & Anor

In assessing general damages for defamation, the court must compensate injury to reputation and feelings, taking account of the gravity of the allegations, the extent of publication and the evidence of harm. The award must also provide adequate vindication. Compensation is confined to injury caused by publication in the United Kingdom and by the publication complained of. Assessment is broad and holistic. Comparable awards may assist, but each case depends on its own facts.

The claimant brought a libel claim concerning an article published on the Gulf News website. The defendants did not participate in the proceedings, and default judgment had been entered. The court was required to assess quantum of general damages and considered the claimant’s unchallenged evidence concerning the seriousness and dissemination of the allegations, their impact on his business and community standing, and the absence of any apology or retraction.

1. Assessment of damages. The purpose of general damages in defamation proceedings was to compensate injury to reputation and feelings, so far as money could do so, and to provide an outward and visible sign of vindication. The court had to consider the gravity of the defamation, the extent of publication, including deliberate or predictable republication, and evidence of the harm caused.
2. Limits of compensation. The award was confined to injury caused by publication in the United Kingdom. The court did not assess harm caused by the overseas readership of Gulf News. Compensation was also limited to harm resulting from the article itself. Damage arising solely from a family association, rather than from the article’s own imputation, was excluded.
3. Application. The allegations imputed serious dishonest and criminal conduct and attacked the claimant’s personal integrity and professional reputation. Publication in the United Kingdom was extensive, including dissemination within the Muslim business community. The claimant’s unchallenged evidence established substantial business, social and personal harm, aggravated by the defendants’ failure to retract, apologise or engage with the proceedings.
4. The assessment had to be broad and holistic. Awards in personal injury and comparable defamation cases could provide proportionality checks, but each case was fact-sensitive. The appropriate global award of general damages was £75,000.