Ghannouchi v Middle East Online Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1992 (QB) (23 July 2020)

Ghannouchi v Middle East Online Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1992 (QB) (23 July 2020)

The court awarded damages based on the seriousness of the defamatory meanings (including allegations of deliberate blindness to terrorism and breach of Tunisian law), the claimant's substantial reputation in the UK, the credibility of the publication and author, the absence of apology, the limited but significant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1992
Parties
Claimant: Rached Ghannouchi; First Defendant: Middle East Online Limited; Second Defendant: Haitham El Zobaidi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Assessment of Damages Following Default Judgment
Outcome
Damages awarded to claimant for defamation; assessment completed.
Legal Topics
Damages Assessment, Serious Harm, Vindication, Publication, Aggravated Damages, Defamatory Meaning, Default Judgment
Defamation Media Law Tort Damages Assessment Serious Harm Vindication Publication Aggravated Damages +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rached Ghannouchi

Claimant

Middle East Online Limited

First Defendant

Haitham El Zobaidi

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Assessment of Damages Following Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for defamation where default judgment has been entered and publication was limited but serious?
  2. 2 How should the defamatory meanings pleaded be construed in context?
  3. 3 What factors aggravate or mitigate damages in this case?

Ratio Decidendi

The court awarded damages based on the seriousness of the defamatory meanings (including allegations of deliberate blindness to terrorism and breach of Tunisian law), the claimant's substantial reputation in the UK, the credibility of the publication and author, the absence of apology, the limited but significant publication (about 200 readers), and the need for vindication. The award was calibrated below the highest band for terrorism allegations due to the absence of direct allegations of personal involvement, but above the lower bands due to the gravity and context.

Court Disposition

Damages awarded to claimant for defamation; assessment completed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay damages to claimant.
  • Defendants to publish composite summary of both default judgment and this judgment as agreed under section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013.