Ken Bates v Tom Rubython & Anor

Ken Bates v Tom Rubython & Anor

The Article published by the Defendants bore highly defamatory meanings, including allegations of murder, fraud, and dishonesty, and its publication to approximately 9,000 readers in England and Wales caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation. The Defendants failed to prove that the Claimant's reputation was already so bad as to be incapable of further harm. The Claimant is entitled to £150,000 in damages (including aggravated damages), an injunction restraining further publication of the same or similar allegations, and an order under s.12 Defamation Act 2013 requiring publication of a summary of the judgment.

Parties
Claimant: Ken Bates; First Defendant: Tom Rubython; Second Defendant: BusinessF1 Magazine Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Libel / Judgment After Contested Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed. Judgment for the Claimant.
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Damages, Aggravated Damages, Injunctions, Remedies, Defamation Act 2013, Meaning of Defamatory Statements
Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm Damages Aggravated Damages Injunctions Remedies +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 7 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ken Bates

Claimant

Tom Rubython

First Defendant

BusinessF1 Magazine Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Judgment After Contested Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the Article?
  2. 2 Has the publication caused or is it likely to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation under s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013?
  3. 3 Is the Claimant entitled to damages, aggravated damages, an injunction, and an order under s.12 Defamation Act 2013?

Ratio Decidendi

The Article published by the Defendants bore highly defamatory meanings, including allegations of murder, fraud, and dishonesty, and its publication to approximately 9,000 readers in England and Wales caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation. The Defendants failed to prove that the Claimant's reputation was already so bad as to be incapable of further harm. The Claimant is entitled to £150,000 in damages (including aggravated damages), an injunction restraining further publication of the same or similar allegations, and an order under s.12 Defamation Act 2013 requiring publication of a summary of the judgment.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Judgment for the Claimant.

Orders

  • Damages of £150,000 awarded to the Claimant (including aggravated damages)
  • Injunction restraining the Defendants from publishing the same or similar allegations