Jameel & Anor v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No.2) [2005] EWCA Civ 74 (03 February 2005)

Jameel & Anor v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No.2) [2005] EWCA Civ 74 (03 February 2005)

The Court held that the trial judge was correct to reject the Reynolds qualified privilege defence, as the publication did not meet the standards of responsible journalism required, particularly in failing to give the claimants a fair opportunity to comment and in publishing names unnecessarily. The presumption of falsity in English defamation law was not open to challenge at this stage, as the parties had conducted the case on that basis. The judge's directions to the jury were not materially erroneous or prejudicial to the defence. The damages awarded were within the jury's discretion and not excessive.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 74
Parties
Claimant Respondents: Jameel & Anr; Defendant / Appellant: Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL (No.2)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Jury Trial and High Court Rulings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; applications for permission to appeal on presumption of falsity refused.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Reynolds Defence, Presumption of Falsity, Article 10 ECHR, Damages in Defamation, Responsible Journalism
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Qualified Privilege Reynolds Defence Presumption of Falsity Article 10 ECHR Damages in Defamation +1 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jameel & Anr

Claimant Respondents

Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL (No.2)

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Jury Trial and High Court Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication was protected by Reynolds qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of falsity in defamation infringes Article 10 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the judge misdirected the jury regarding the presumption of falsity

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the trial judge was correct to reject the Reynolds qualified privilege defence, as the publication did not meet the standards of responsible journalism required, particularly in failing to give the claimants a fair opportunity to comment and in publishing names unnecessarily. The presumption of falsity in English defamation law was not open to challenge at this stage, as the parties had conducted the case on that basis. The judge's directions to the jury were not materially erroneous or prejudicial to the defence. The damages awarded were within the jury's discretion and not excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; applications for permission to appeal on presumption of falsity refused.

Orders

  • Damages of £30,000 to Mr Jameel and £10,000 to the Jameel Company affirmed.
  • No change to the trial judge's orders.