Ghannouchi v Middle East Online Ltd & Anor

Ghannouchi v Middle East Online Ltd & Anor

The seriousness of the defamatory imputations—alleging deliberate blindness to terrorism and illegal foreign funding—warranted a substantial award, but the distinctly limited publication (less than 200 readers) required moderation. The award of £45,000 balances the gravity of the libel, the need for vindication, the limited readership, and the absence of an apology, providing a headline figure sufficient to vindicate the claimant without being disproportionate.

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 assessed in favour of the claimant.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Damages, Default Judgment, Publication of Judgment, Vindication of Reputation
Tort Media Law Defamation Damages Default Judgment Publication of Judgment Vindication of Reputation

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 25 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 defamation where default judgment has been entered and publication was limited but the imputations were grave?
  2. 2 How should the seriousness of the defamatory meanings and the extent of publication affect the damages award?

Ratio Decidendi

The seriousness of the defamatory imputations—alleging deliberate blindness to terrorism and illegal foreign funding—warranted a substantial award, but the distinctly limited publication (less than 200 readers) required moderation. The award of £45,000 balances the gravity of the libel, the need for vindication, the limited readership, and the absence of an apology, providing a headline figure sufficient to vindicate the claimant without being disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Damages assessed in favour of the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the claimant £45,000 in damages for defamation.
  • Defendants to publish summaries of the default judgment and this judgment in accordance with section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013.