Ken Bates v Tom Rubython & Anor

The Claimant brought libel proceedings in respect of a four-page feature published in the May 2023 edition of BusinessF1 Magazine and online, alleging among other things murder, large-scale fraud and tax evasion. The Defendants admitted publication but did not plead truth; their primary defence was that the Claimant already had no reputation to damage. The court decided meaning, serious harm under the Defamation Act 2013 s.1(1), and remedies.

Key legal conclusions: the Article bore serious imputations including that the Claimant amassed wealth by dishonesty (detailed sub-imputations), that he had probably had business rivals murdered, and that there were strong grounds to suspect he arranged the sabotage of the helicopter that killed Matthew Harding. The Claimant proved serious harm on each imputation: the court accepted an inferential case based on the Article's gravity, the Magazine’s readership and trust, repetition of the allegations on the letters page, and the Defendants’ deliberate failure to comply with a disclosure order for subscriber details (adverse inference). The court struck out large swathes of the First Defendant’s witness statement (paras 2–60) as inadmissible and refused to admit it as Burstein material.

Remedies: judgment for the Claimant, damages of £150,000 (including an element for aggravation), an injunction restraining repetition of the same or similar allegations, and an order under Defamation Act 2013 s.12 requiring publication of a summary of the judgment.

This was a first-instance trial of a libel claim by a retired businessman against the editor and publisher of BusinessF1 Magazine arising from a May 2023 feature titled "The biggest 'wrong-un' in sport".

Background and procedural posture

• The Claimant (a former football club owner resident in Monaco) sought damages, an injunction, and a s.12 order. The Defendants admitted publication and that the Article was defamatory at common law but did not plead truth; their pleaded case concentrated on lack of reputation to sustain serious harm and the insufficiency of the Claimant’s inferential evidence of harm.
• Before trial the court struck out parts of the Amended Defence (those relying on specific acts of misconduct without averments that readers knew of them) and struck out paragraphs 2–60 of the First Defendant’s witness statement as inadmissible (third‑party hearsay, insufficient source particularisation and principally evidence of alleged specific misconduct). The court refused to admit that material as Burstein evidence for reasons including lack of particularisation and proportionality.

Issues for determination

1. Meaning of the Article;
2. Whether publication caused or was likely to cause serious harm to reputation (Defamation Act 2013 s.1(1)), including the Defendants’ argument that the Claimant had a pre-existing reputation so bad he could not be further harmed; and
3. Remedies, if liability established (damages, injunction, s.12 order).

Evidence

• The Magazine’s audited circulation and readership profile were relied on by the Claimant; the court accepted the Edition typically reached circa 40,000 readers and found around 9,000 readers in England and Wales probably read the Article.
• The Defendants failed to comply with a court order to disclose the list of subscribers in England and Wales; the judge found deliberate non‑compliance and drew an adverse inference.
• The Defendants published edited versions of the Claimant’s letters of claim on the Magazine letters pages which the judge found misleading and aggravating.

Court reasoning and outcome

• Meaning: the court identified the natural and ordinary meaning as imputations that the Claimant (a) amassed substantial wealth by a course of dishonest conduct (with detailed sub-imputations about BVI land fraud, asset‑stripping Chelsea and manoeuvres at Leeds, and tax evasion), (b) almost certainly had business rivals murdered when in the concrete business, (c) there are strong grounds to suspect he arranged sabotage of the helicopter that killed Matthew Harding, and (d) he suppressed reporting by libel litigation and by sending "thugs" to remove magazines.
• Serious harm: applying s.1(1), the judge held the Claimant proved serious reputational harm on each imputation by inference from inherent probabilities, the Article’s seriousness, the Magazine’s trusted readership, repetition on letters pages, percolation, and the adverse inference from deliberate nondisclosure of the subscribers list. The Defendants’ limited evidence of a pre-existing bad reputation failed.
• Remedies: the court awarded £150,000 damages (including aggravation), granted an injunction preventing repetition of the same or similar allegations, and ordered that a short s.12 summary of the judgment be published; costs and details of the s.12 wording/publication to be settled.

First instance: Claimant judgment for libel. The court found the Article carried serious imputations (dishonesty, probable murder of rivals, strong grounds to suspect involvement in the Harding helicopter sabotage, bank collapse allegation, and suppression of reporting), rejected the Defendants’ case that the Claimant had no reputation to damage, found serious harm under Defamation Act 2013 s.1(1) had been proven and awarded remedies: £150,000 damages (including aggravation), an injunction against repetition and an order under s.12 to publish a summary of the judgment. The reasoning rested on meaning, readership, the Article’s gravity, reinforcement on letters pages, and an adverse inference from deliberate non-compliance with a disclosure order; significant parts of the First Defendant’s witness statement were struck out as inadmissible.