Banks v Cadwalladr [2022] EWHC 1417 (QB) (13 June 2022)

Banks v Cadwalladr [2022] EWHC 1417 (QB) (13 June 2022)

The court held that Mr Banks failed to prove that the TED Talk and Tweet caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation within the meaning of s.1 Defamation Act 2013. The imputation, while serious, was not at the most serious end of the scale, and there was insufficient evidence of serious reputational harm in England and Wales. The public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013 succeeded in part, as Ms Cadwalladr had a reasonable belief that publication was in the public interest at the time of the original publication. The claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1417
Parties
Claimant: Arron Banks; Defendant: Carole Cadwalladr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Threshold, Public Interest Defence, Reputation, Freedom of Expression, Damages
Defamation Media Law Serious Harm Threshold Public Interest Defence Reputation Freedom of Expression 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arron Banks

Claimant

Carole Cadwalladr

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the TED Talk and Tweet caused or were likely to cause serious harm to Mr Banks's reputation under s.1 Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether Ms Cadwalladr believed publication was in the public interest and whether that belief was reasonable under s.4 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether there was a significant change in circumstances affecting the public interest defence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Mr Banks failed to prove that the TED Talk and Tweet caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation within the meaning of s.1 Defamation Act 2013. The imputation, while serious, was not at the most serious end of the scale, and there was insufficient evidence of serious reputational harm in England and Wales. The public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013 succeeded in part, as Ms Cadwalladr had a reasonable belief that publication was in the public interest at the time of the original publication. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed