Sooben v Badal [2017] EWHC 2638 (QB) (31 October 2017)

Sooben v Badal [2017] EWHC 2638 (QB) (31 October 2017)

The article conveyed the meaning that the claimant attempted to procure false evidence from Mr Deepchand to be used in legal proceedings, amounting to an attempt to procure perjury. The defendant, as publisher, was liable for this meaning under the repetition rule. The Reynolds privilege defence failed because the inclusion of the perjury allegation was gratuitous, not justified by public interest, and the defendant failed to meet the standards of responsible journalism, including not contacting the claimant or including his side of the story. The claimant was entitled to damages for the serious harm to his reputation.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2638
Parties
Claimant: Anbananden Sooben; Defendant: Eshan Badal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Reynolds Privilege, Damages for Defamation, Responsible Journalism, Repetition Rule
Defamation Media Law Libel Reynolds Privilege Damages for Defamation Responsible Journalism Repetition Rule

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

Parties

Anbananden Sooben

Claimant

Eshan Badal

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the defamatory meaning of the words complained of?
  2. 2 Is the publication protected by Reynolds privilege?
  3. 3 If not, what damages should be awarded?

Ratio Decidendi

The article conveyed the meaning that the claimant attempted to procure false evidence from Mr Deepchand to be used in legal proceedings, amounting to an attempt to procure perjury. The defendant, as publisher, was liable for this meaning under the repetition rule. The Reynolds privilege defence failed because the inclusion of the perjury allegation was gratuitous, not justified by public interest, and the defendant failed to meet the standards of responsible journalism, including not contacting the claimant or including his side of the story. The claimant was entitled to damages for the serious harm to his reputation.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages to the claimant
  • Defendant to publish an apology in Mauritius Now (if still published)