Shakil-Ur-Rahman v ARY Network Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 3110 (QB) (02 December 2016)

Shakil-Ur-Rahman v ARY Network Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 3110 (QB) (02 December 2016)

The Defendants' broadcasts were found to be seriously defamatory of the Claimant, causing or likely to cause serious harm to his reputation in England and Wales. No substantive defence was available: justification/truth and fair comment/honest opinion were struck out, and qualified privilege failed as there was no duty to publish, no relevant attack to reply to, and no responsible journalism. The Claimant's denials were unchallenged. Damages were assessed globally for the 24 libellous broadcasts, with aggravating factors including persistence and lack of apology, and limited mitigation. The harassment claim added nothing material to the damages beyond aggravation for the libels.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3110 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mir Shakil-Ur-Rahman; Defendant: ARY Network Ltd; Defendant: Fayaz Ghafoor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Harassment Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Defamation, Harassment, Damages, Qualified Privilege, Serious Harm, Libel, Mitigation of Damages
Media Law Tort Law Defamation Harassment Damages Qualified Privilege Serious Harm Libel +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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mir Shakil-Ur-Rahman

Claimant

ARY Network Ltd

Defendant

Fayaz Ghafoor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation and Harassment Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the broadcasts by the Defendants were defamatory of the Claimant and caused serious harm to his reputation in England and Wales
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' conduct amounted to harassment under the Prevention of Harassment Act 1997
  3. 3 Whether any defences of justification/truth, fair comment/honest opinion, or qualified privilege were available to the Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants' broadcasts were found to be seriously defamatory of the Claimant, causing or likely to cause serious harm to his reputation in England and Wales. No substantive defence was available: justification/truth and fair comment/honest opinion were struck out, and qualified privilege failed as there was no duty to publish, no relevant attack to reply to, and no responsible journalism. The Claimant's denials were unchallenged. Damages were assessed globally for the 24 libellous broadcasts, with aggravating factors including persistence and lack of apology, and limited mitigation. The harassment claim added nothing material to the damages beyond aggravation for the libels.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Defendants to pay £185,000 in damages to the Claimant for libel
  • Defendants found liable for defamation and harassment