Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd & Anor[2021] EWHC 1797 (QB) (01 July 2021)

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd & Anor[2021] EWHC 1797 (QB) (01 July 2021)

The court found that the articles published by the defendants contained serious and false allegations against the claimant, were widely published, and caused serious harm to his reputation. The defendants failed to put the allegations to the claimant or to verify them adequately, falling short of journalistic standards and the requirements of the public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013. The public interest defence was therefore not made out. The claimant was entitled to damages, aggravated damages, an injunction, and publication of a summary of the judgment.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1797
Parties
Claimant: Bruno Lachaux; First Defendant: Independent Print Limited; Second Defendant: Evening Standard Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Public Interest Defence, Journalistic Standards, Damages, Aggravated Damages, Injunction, Publication of Judgment Summary
Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm Public Interest Defence Journalistic Standards Damages Aggravated Damages +2 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruno Lachaux

Claimant

Independent Print Limited

First Defendant

Evening Standard Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the articles published by the defendants were defamatory of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the publications caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation under s.1 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether the public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013 was made out by the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the articles published by the defendants contained serious and false allegations against the claimant, were widely published, and caused serious harm to his reputation. The defendants failed to put the allegations to the claimant or to verify them adequately, falling short of journalistic standards and the requirements of the public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013. The public interest defence was therefore not made out. The claimant was entitled to damages, aggravated damages, an injunction, and publication of a summary of the judgment.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay damages and aggravated damages to the claimant.
  • Defendants restrained by injunction from further publication of the defamatory allegations.