Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd. [1993] EWCA Civ 16 (31 March 1993)

Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd. [1993] EWCA Civ 16 (31 March 1993)

The Court of Appeal held that the jury's award of £250,000 was excessive and disproportionate, failing to meet the requirement of necessity and proportionality under Article 10 ECHR as reflected in common law. The court substituted a lower award, holding that appellate scrutiny of large libel awards must be more searching to ensure compatibility with freedom of expression and legal certainty.

Citation
[1993] EWCA Civ 16
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Esther Louise Rantzen; Appellant (defendant): Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd.; Appellant (defendant): Brian Radford; Appellant (defendant): Richard Stott; Appellant (defendant): Mirror Group Newspapers PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 1993
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) Jury Trial for Libel / Judgment on Appeal Against Damages Award
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced
Legal Topics
Libel Damages, Jury Awards, Freedom of Expression, Aggravated Damages, Justification and Fair Comment, Article 10 ECHR, Judicial Guidance to Juries
Defamation Media Law Tort Law Human Rights Libel Damages Jury Awards Freedom of Expression Aggravated Damages +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esther Louise Rantzen

Respondent (plaintiff)

Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd.

Appellant (defendant)

Brian Radford

Appellant (defendant)

Richard Stott

Appellant (defendant)

Mirror Group Newspapers PLC

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) Jury Trial for Libel / Judgment on Appeal Against Damages Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's award of £250,000 in libel damages was excessive and should be set aside or reduced
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the assessment of damages
  3. 3 Whether the absence of an apology and persistence in justification aggravated damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the jury's award of £250,000 was excessive and disproportionate, failing to meet the requirement of necessity and proportionality under Article 10 ECHR as reflected in common law. The court substituted a lower award, holding that appellate scrutiny of large libel awards must be more searching to ensure compatibility with freedom of expression and legal certainty.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced

Orders

  • Original jury award of £250,000 set aside
  • Substituted award of £110,000 in damages to the plaintiff