Defamation 'victory for poor'
Three judges paved the way for aggrieved people unable to afford the thousands of pounds needed to launch a libel action - for which no legal aid funding is available - to bring claims for 'malicious falsehood', which does qualify for financial aid.
Mark Stephens, the solicitor in the case, welcomed the ruling as a 'victory for the poor'.
He said: 'The courts have remedied a great social injustice . . . they have finally recognised that poor people have the right to clear their names if newspapers recklessly lie about them.'
He was representing Linda Joyce, 34, of Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, a former maid to the Princess Royal, who wanted to sue Today newspaper over a front- page article which wrongly accused her of stealing the princess's personal mail. Miss Joyce had been advised she would need pounds 40,000 to start a libel claim against the newspaper which, as a former maid earning less than pounds 5,000 a year, she did not have.
Instead, she embarked on a claim for the rarely used common law of malicious falsehood, At the request of Today, the claim was initially thrown out by a deputy High Court judge, who ruled that it was, in reality, a disguised libel action and was an abuse of the court processes.
But yesterday Sir Donald Nicholls, the Vice-Chancellor, sitting with Lord Justice Butler-Sloss and Sir Michael Kerr, overturned the ruling.
He said: 'The plaintiff's main purpose in bringing this action is to clear her name. If she wins, she will succeed in doing so. Compared with a libel action, the amount of damages she may recover in malicious falsehood may be small, but there is no reason why she should not be able to pursue such a claim.'
It was, he said, 'as plain as a pikestaff that had legal aid been available for libel, this action would have been a straightforward defamation action'. The article had been 'grossly defamatory', he said.
'The newspaper did not publish any retraction or apology, although it had not sought to say that the assertions of fact were true,' he said.
But while malicious falsehood may provide some remedy for those unable to fund libel actions, it will be a more difficult and less lucrative course to follow. Complainants will have to prove an article or news item was false and that publication was prompted by malice - so that a news organisation which acted in good faith would not be liable. Further, the complainants will have to prove financial loss in order to recover damages. By contrast, in successful libel claims the injured party can win vast sums for damaged reputations.
Sir Donald said: 'Legal aid apart, there is no reason to suppose that in future, persons who are the subject of defamatory articles in newspapers will be queuing up to issue writs for malicious falsehood. It would make no sense for them to do so, and take on the burden of proving malice and, if successful, still not be able to recover damages for loss of reputation.'
Today had argued that the Legal Aid Board could now be flooded with applications for financial aid to pursue actions against newspapers for defamation - which was never intended by Parliament when it excluded libel from legal aid provision.
But the judges said the discretion about whether or not to grant aid rested with the Legal Aid Board. It would always be open to a defendant news organisation to take up unreasonable claims with the board.
Kirstie Allsopp has waded into the female fertility debate again
...and it wasn't caused by an asteroid crash, as first thought
- 1 Snoop Dogg and Jared Leto buy a stake in Reddit as A-list invests $50m
- 2 Prince held a Facebook Q&A and this is the only question he answered...
- 3 35,000 walrus gather on north-west Alaska beach 'for a rest'
- 4 Brad Pitt, on the moment he completely lost his temper with Clint Eastwood's son
- 5 A teacher speaks out: 'I'm effectively being forced out of a career that I wanted to love'
Stella McCartney apologises over controversial 'very ill' model picture on Instagram
Snoop Dogg and Jared Leto buy a stake in Reddit as A-list invests $50m
Prince held a Facebook Q&A and this is the only question he answered...
Brad Pitt, on the moment he completely lost his temper with Clint Eastwood's son
Cheryl Cole named 'the most dangerous celebrity' on the internet
Former Tory donor Arron Banks ups his Ukip donation to £1million following William Hague 'nobody' comment
Exclusive: 'Putin's Russia has been my biggest regret,' says Nato's outgoing Secretary General
The Osborne Ultimatum: Chancellor’s benefits freeze bombshell will affect ten million households
There’s no excuse for Dave Lee Travis’s behaviour, but we need to keep a sense of proportion
Mark Reckless becomes second Tory MP to defect to Ukip in a month
Should gay sex be illegal? 16% of Britons think so
- < Previous
- Next >
£25000 - £30000 Per Annum Excellent benefits: Clearwater People Solutions Ltd:...
£26000 - £28000 Per Annum: Clearwater People Solutions Ltd: We are currently r...
£110 - £130 per day: Randstad Education Reading: English Teacher required for ...
£55000 - £60000 Per Annum plus excellent benefits: Clearwater People Solutions...