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 bears a defamatory meaning that Mr Rothschild facilitated Lord Mandelson's attendance at a business dinner in Moscow, exposing Mandelson to accusations of conflict of interest and suspicion of improper discussion about EU aluminium tariffs, as part of Mr Rothschild's efforts to impress Deripaska. However, the Defendant failed to prove the substantial truth of the specific allegations regarding the Alcoa dinner and improper discussions, and the evidence relating to the Siberian trip did not justify the sting of the libel as substantially true.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 177 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Nathaniel Philip Victor James Rothschild; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claimant succeeds; Defendant's defence of justification fails.
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification, Truth Defence, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Mitigation of Damages
Defamation Media Law Libel Justification Truth Defence Meaning of Defamatory Statements 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 / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What defamatory meaning does the Article bear in relation to Mr Rothschild?
  2. 2 Can the Defendant prove the truth or substantial truth of the defamatory allegations?
  3. 3 Does the Defendant's evidence justify the sting of the libel as substantially true?

Ratio Decidendi

The Article bears a defamatory meaning that Mr Rothschild facilitated Lord Mandelson's attendance at a business dinner in Moscow, exposing Mandelson to accusations of conflict of interest and suspicion of improper discussion about EU aluminium tariffs, as part of Mr Rothschild's efforts to impress Deripaska. However, the Defendant failed to prove the substantial truth of the specific allegations regarding the Alcoa dinner and improper discussions, and the evidence relating to the Siberian trip did not justify the sting of the libel as substantially true.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds; Defendant's defence of justification fails.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant
  • Damages to be assessed