Sooben v Badal

Sooben v Badal

The article published by the Defendant contained a very serious and false allegation that the Claimant attempted to procure perjury, which was defamatory and not justified by any defence. The Defendant failed to meet the standards of responsible journalism required for Reynolds privilege, including not seeking the Claimant's response and publishing a one-sided account. The Claimant is entitled to damages for the harm to his reputation and distress caused.

Parties
Claimant: Anbananden Sooben; Defendant: Eshan Badal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Reynolds Privilege, Damages, Professional Reputation
Defamation Media Law Libel Reynolds Privilege Damages Professional Reputation

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anbananden Sooben

Claimant

Eshan Badal

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published article was defamatory of the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant could rely on Reynolds privilege (responsible journalism/public interest)
  3. 3 Assessment of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The article published by the Defendant contained a very serious and false allegation that the Claimant attempted to procure perjury, which was defamatory and not justified by any defence. The Defendant failed to meet the standards of responsible journalism required for Reynolds privilege, including not seeking the Claimant's response and publishing a one-sided account. The Claimant is entitled to damages for the harm to his reputation and distress caused.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • The Defendant shall pay the Claimant £70,000 in general damages for libel.