Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 177 (QB) (10 February 2012)

Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 177 (QB) (10 February 2012)

The Article bore the meaning that Mr Rothschild flew Lord Mandelson to Moscow and facilitated his attendance at a business dinner, exposing Mandelson to accusations of conflict of interest and disrepute, and giving rise to reasonable grounds for suspecting improper discussions about aluminium tariffs. However, the defendant could not prove the truth of the core defamatory allegations relating to the Alcoa dinner, and the inaccuracies were too significant for the defence of justification to succeed. Facts relating to the Siberian trip could not justify the specific defamatory sting of the Article.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 177
Parties
Claimant: Nathaniel Philip Victor James Rothschild; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification (truth) Defence, Meaning of Defamatory Words, Mitigation of Damages
Defamation Media Law Libel Justification (truth) Defence Meaning of Defamatory Words Mitigation of Damages

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathaniel Philip Victor James Rothschild

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What defamatory meaning did the Article bear in relation to Mr Rothschild?
  2. 2 Whether the defamatory allegations were true or substantially true (justification)?
  3. 3 Whether the inaccuracies in the Article preclude the defence of justification?

Ratio Decidendi

The Article bore the meaning that Mr Rothschild flew Lord Mandelson to Moscow and facilitated his attendance at a business dinner, exposing Mandelson to accusations of conflict of interest and disrepute, and giving rise to reasonable grounds for suspecting improper discussions about aluminium tariffs. However, the defendant could not prove the truth of the core defamatory allegations relating to the Alcoa dinner, and the inaccuracies were too significant for the defence of justification to succeed. Facts relating to the Siberian trip could not justify the specific defamatory sting of the Article.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Defendant liable for libel
  • Damages to be assessed