Dr Ashti Hawrami v Journalism Development Network, Inc & Ors

Dr Ashti Hawrami v Journalism Development Network, Inc & Ors

The Article was not a fair and accurate report of the Excalibur judgment or proceedings, nor a fair extract from the Representation Agreement, and was so intermingled with extraneous and embellished material that the quality of fairness required for reporting privilege was lost. None of the paragraphs pleaded were protected by s.15 of the Defamation Act 1996. The natural and ordinary meaning of the Article was the same in all versions: there were strong grounds to suspect the claimant, while Minister of Natural Resources, granted a lucrative oil concession knowing of and because of a corrupt kickback deal, subsequently failed to cancel the concession in knowing violation of the law, and...

Parties
Claimant: Dr Ashti Hawrami; First Defendant: Journalism Development Network, Inc.; Second Defendant: Daniel Balint-Kurti; Third Defendant: William Jordan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Judgment on Preliminary Issues: Meaning, Defamatory Tendency, and Qualified Privilege
Outcome
Defence of qualified privilege dismissed; Article found defamatory at common law.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Meaning in Defamation, Defamatory Tendency, Public Interest Defence
Defamation Media Law Qualified Privilege Meaning in Defamation Defamatory Tendency Public Interest Defence

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Ashti Hawrami

Claimant

Journalism Development Network, Inc.

First Defendant

Daniel Balint-Kurti

Second Defendant

William Jordan

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / Judgment on Preliminary Issues: Meaning, Defamatory Tendency, and Qualified Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the Article are protected by qualified privilege under s.15 of the Defamation Act 1996
  2. 2 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the Article
  3. 3 Whether the Article is defamatory of the claimant at common law

Ratio Decidendi

The Article was not a fair and accurate report of the Excalibur judgment or proceedings, nor a fair extract from the Representation Agreement, and was so intermingled with extraneous and embellished material that the quality of fairness required for reporting privilege was lost. None of the paragraphs pleaded were protected by s.15 of the Defamation Act 1996. The natural and ordinary meaning of the Article was the same in all versions: there were strong grounds to suspect the claimant, while Minister of Natural Resources, granted a lucrative oil concession knowing of and because of a corrupt kickback deal, subsequently failed to cancel the concession in knowing violation of the law, and...

Court Disposition

Defence of qualified privilege dismissed; Article found defamatory at common law.

Orders

  • None of the paragraphs of the Article pleaded are protected by s.15 of the Defamation Act 1996.
  • The natural and ordinary meaning of the Article is set out in the judgment and is defamatory at common law.