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 held that the appropriate award of damages must reflect the gravity of the defamatory meanings accepted by default, the claimant's substantial reputation in the UK, the seriousness of the allegations (permitting illicit foreign funding and leading a party that tolerates and supports terrorism), the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1992 (QB)
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
Legal Topics
Damages Assessment, Default Judgment, Serious Harm, Vindication, Publication of Defamatory Material, Mitigation of Damages
Defamation Media Law Tort Damages Assessment Default Judgment Serious Harm Vindication Publication of Defamatory Material +1 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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 the defamation of the claimant by the defendants via online publication?
  2. 2 What is the proper construction of the defamatory meanings pleaded and accepted by default?
  3. 3 What factors aggravate or mitigate the damages in this context?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appropriate award of damages must reflect the gravity of the defamatory meanings accepted by default, the claimant's substantial reputation in the UK, the seriousness of the allegations (permitting illicit foreign funding and leading a party that tolerates and supports terrorism), the credibility of the publication, the absence of apology, and the limited but not insignificant extent of publication (about 200 readers). The award must provide vindication and compensate for distress, but not be aggravated further due to the claimant's agreement not to pursue aggravated damages. The court rejected attempts to expand the defamatory meanings beyond those pleaded and...

Court Disposition

Damages awarded to claimant

Orders

  • Defendants to pay £45,000 in damages to the claimant
  • Defendants to publish a composite summary of the default and damages judgments as previously ordered