Cleese v Clark & Anor [2003] EWHC 137 (QB) (06 February 2003)

Cleese v Clark & Anor [2003] EWHC 137 (QB) (06 February 2003)

The appropriate compensation for Mr Cleese is £13,500, reflecting the lower gravity of the libel, the genuine distress caused, the limited impact on reputation, the scale of publication, the mitigating effect of the apology and correction (albeit limited in prominence and content), and the conduct of both parties in negotiations. The sum is compensatory, not punitive, and is set below the claimant's initial demand but above the defendants' offer, in line with modern defamation damages practice.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 137 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: John Cleese; First Defendant: Peter Clark; Second Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation—assessment of Compensation Under S.3 Defamation Act 1996 (offer of Amends Procedure) / Assessment of Compensation Following Acceptance of Offer of Amends; Hearing Before Judge Without Jury
Outcome
Compensation awarded to claimant
Legal Topics
Offer of Amends, Damages Assessment, Mitigation and Aggravation, Apology and Correction, Libel Procedure
Defamation Media Law Tort Offer of Amends Damages Assessment Mitigation and Aggravation Apology and Correction Libel Procedure

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Cleese

Claimant

Peter Clark

First Defendant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation—assessment of Compensation Under S.3 Defamation Act 1996 (offer of Amends Procedure) / Assessment of Compensation Following Acceptance of Offer of Amends; Hearing Before Judge Without Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate amount of compensation under s.3(5) Defamation Act 1996 following acceptance of an offer of amends?
  2. 2 How should the court assess the adequacy and effect of the apology and correction?
  3. 3 What weight should be given to the conduct of the parties in negotiations and mitigation?

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate compensation for Mr Cleese is £13,500, reflecting the lower gravity of the libel, the genuine distress caused, the limited impact on reputation, the scale of publication, the mitigating effect of the apology and correction (albeit limited in prominence and content), and the conduct of both parties in negotiations. The sum is compensatory, not punitive, and is set below the claimant's initial demand but above the defendants' offer, in line with modern defamation damages practice.

Court Disposition

Compensation awarded to claimant

Orders

  • Defendants to pay £13,500 to claimant as compensation under s.3(5) Defamation Act 1996