El Naschie v Macmillan Publishers Ltd (t/a Nature Publishing Group) & Anor [2012] EWHC 1809 (QB) (06 July 2012)

El Naschie v Macmillan Publishers Ltd (t/a Nature Publishing Group) & Anor [2012] EWHC 1809 (QB) (06 July 2012)

The article was substantially true in its core allegations: the Claimant excessively self-published poor quality papers in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals without proper peer review, inflated citation metrics, and made cavalier or false claims about academic affiliations. The Defendants' comments were defensible as honest comment, and the article was the product of responsible journalism, so all defences succeeded.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1809
Parties
Claimant: Professor Mohamed Salah El Din Hamed El Naschie; First Defendant: Macmillan Publishers Ltd (trading as Nature Publishing Group); Second Defendant: Mr Quirin Schiermeier
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification (truth), Honest Comment, Qualified Privilege (reynolds), Peer Review Ethics, Editorial Standards
Defamation Media Law Libel Justification (truth) Honest Comment Qualified Privilege (reynolds) Peer Review Ethics Editorial Standards

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professor Mohamed Salah El Din Hamed El Naschie

Claimant

Macmillan Publishers Ltd (trading as Nature Publishing Group)

First Defendant

Mr Quirin Schiermeier

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article published by the Defendants was defamatory of the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' defences of justification (truth), honest comment, and Reynolds privilege succeed

Ratio Decidendi

The article was substantially true in its core allegations: the Claimant excessively self-published poor quality papers in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals without proper peer review, inflated citation metrics, and made cavalier or false claims about academic affiliations. The Defendants' comments were defensible as honest comment, and the article was the product of responsible journalism, so all defences succeeded.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed in its entirety.