Mawdsley v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWHC 1780 (QB) (24 July 2002)

Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1780 (QB) CASE NO: HQ02X00381 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 24th July 2002 B e f o r e : MR JUSTICE MORLAND ____________________ JAMES RUPERT RUSSELL MAWDSLEY Claimant - and - GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LIMITED Defendants ____________________ Tape Transcript of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HG ____________________ MR EDWARD GARNIER QC appeared on behalf of the Claimant MR ANDREW COLDECOTT QC appeared on behalf of the Defendant ____________________ HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________ Crown Copyright © (This transcript was prepared without the assistance of documents) MR JUSTICE MORLAND: The defendants apply for summary disposal of the claim under section 8 of the Defamation Act 1996. The claim in libel arises out of the publication on 9th June 2000 in the weekend section of The Guardian of a four page illustrated article entitled "Back Packers Crusade" by two freelance journalists, Adrian Levy and Kathy Scott Clarke. The article was also published on the defendant's website from 9th June 2001 until 17th January 2002. The claimant, Mr James Mawdsley, who is now aged 29, is an emerging public figure and aspiring Tory politician with an adventurous background. I do not propose to repeat in this judgment the whole of the article which contains some 36 paragraphs. All but one of which refer specifically to Mr Mawdsley. But to obtain the flavour of the article I shall highlight some passages. below the title appears: "Three times James Mawdsley entered Burma to protest against the regime. Three times he was arrested, the last time sentenced to 17 years jail. Released and prospering he has now become a Conservative party activist." In paragraph 6 appears: "And when Mawdsley touched down at Bangkok airport on October 21st last year he became a global co-celeb almost as famous as the woman who had inspired him On Sang Su Ki, the pro democracy leader of Burma who has spent the best part of 12 years incarcerated in her Rangoon home. Since then Mawdsley has walked into a promising career, a documentary, a six figure book deal and a leg up in his chosen new vocation. He has given up Burma to become an activist for the Conservative party." In paragraph 31 appears this sentence: "It is apparent that Mawdsley is slowly repositioning himself." In paragraph 33: "Today, Britain's best known Human Rights activist cites Margaret Thatcher as his inspiration rather than On Sang Su Ki." In the paragraphs at the end of the article, I quote: "In the next election he plans to be a Parliamentary candidate and undoubtedly harbours leadership ambitions. What does a man who admits that he has little knowledge of Burmese history, few contacts among the country's leading dissidents, no understanding of its democracy struggle hope to achieve by standing in a crowded Burmese market, handing out copies of his English booklet while playing freedom songs on a tape recorder. Read James Mawdsley lips he's not talking about Burmese democracy and Human Rights abuses any more, he's talking about himself. I've learned about Burma now it's time I learned about British politics." The defendants accept the article conveys a message defamatory of the claimant. The defamatory meaning pleaded in the particulars of claim read, and I quote from paragraph 4 of the particulars of claim: "The claimant is a disingenuous hypocrite who cares little for the effects of his activities of the Burmese people and/or the calls for democracy in Burma being more concerned to use his fame, to build a career as a conservative politician in the United Kingdom." The assessment of damages in libel is based upon the notional one actual defamatory meaning. The article, in my judgment, is capable of conveying the defamatory meaning pleaded in paragraph 4 of the particulars of claim. I do not accept Mr Caldecott's submission that it is not capable of sending out the defamatory message that Mr Mawdsley is a disingenuous hypocrite. I have to put myself in the position of the ordinary, reasonable, fair minded reader of The Guardian. Not given to textual analysis nor avid for scandal but likely to read between the lines. Not giving the worst defamatory meanings if other defamatory meanings are equally readable and understood from the words complained of. In my judgment, for the purposes of this application, I should assume that the pleaded meaning is the actual meaning upon which damages would be assessed. The relevant words of section 8 are as follows: "(1) In defamation proceedings the court may dispose summarily of the plaintiff's claim in accordance with the following provisions. ... (3) The court may give judgment for the plaintiff and grant him summary relief (see section 9) if it appears to the court that there is no defence to the claim which has a realistic prospect of success, and that there is no other reason why the claim should be tried. Unless the plaintiff asks for summary relief, the court should not act under this subsection unless it is satisfied that summary relief would adequately compensate him for the wrong he has suffered." Interposing there, in my judgment, the section gives the Court a discretion as to whether or not to give judgment for the plaintiff and to grant him summary relief. In my judgment, whether or not summary relief will adequately compensate is a matter of judgment for the court. Mr Caldecott, in my judgment, rightly stressed the epithet is "adequately". Subsection (4) reads: "In considering whether a claimant should be tried, a court shall have regard to (a) whether all the persons who are or might be defendants in respect of the publication complained of are before the court." In this case, the claimant, by separate proceedings, has issued a claim against the two journalists, the authors of the article. Those proceedings have not as yet been served on the two journalists because it has proved impossible to serve them because they are abroad. In my judgment, the fact that the two journalists have been sued in separate proceedings is a factor that I should have regard to but is by no means a determining factor. In this particular case, having regard to the conduct of both the claimant and the defendants, in my judgment, it would not be an appropriate case to say that this case should be tried fully, as libel cases normally are before a jury, merely because of the fact that, in this particular case, the two journalists are defendants in proceedings not yet served by the claimant upon them. In my judgment, having regard to the content of the article, and the extent of its publication in the Guardian, the wrong done to the claimant can properly be described as serious. Section 9 reads: "(1) For the purpose of section 8 summary disposal of claim, summary relief means such of the following as may be appropriate (a) a declaration that the statement was false and defamatory of the plaintiff..." Interposing there, in my judgment the declaration that the court has the power to make is limited to a statement which is both false and defamatory of the plaintiff. Without agreement, in my judgment, the court would not have the power to make a declaration that a statement which was not defamatory of the plaintiff but which was false, could be the subject of a declaration. Section 9(1)(b) reads: "An order that the defendant publish or cause to be published a suitable correction and apology. (c) damages not exceeding £10,000; (d) an order restraining the defendant from publishing or further publishing the matter complained of." So far as 9(d) is concerned, clearly, if the defamatory matter had still been on the website, such an order would have been appropriate in this case. In my judgment, the extensive powers of the court in giving summary relief should not be underestimated; unlike the position in a jury trial, the court has the power to order the publication of an apology and, in default of agreement, determine the time, manner, form and place of publication. That power is given under section 9(2): "The content of any correction in an apology and the time, manner, form and place of publication shall be for the parties to agree. If they cannot agree on the content, the court may direct the defendant to publish or cause to be published a summary of the court's judgment, agreed by the parties or settled by the court in accordance with the rules of court. If they cannot agree on the time, manner, form, or place of publication, the court may direct the defendant to take such reasonable and practicable steps as the court can considers appropriate." In determining whether the summary relief is adequate, in my judgment the Court has to consider its cumulative powers under section 9. It is a package. In this case, I must judge whether (a) a declaration; (b) an apology; (c) damages, not exceeding £10,000 and (d) a restraining order, if appropriate, will provided adequate compensation for the wrong that the claimant has suffered. Where as an award of £30,000 damages from a jury, might be inadequate compensation on its own, it does not follow that an award of £10,000 damages, by way of summary relief, coupled with a declaration and an apology, and possibly a restraining order, would not be adequate compensation as a whole. The question of the use of sections 8 and 9, with regard to disposal of quantum was considered by the Court of Appeal in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Nos 2, 3, 4 and 5 2002 Entertainment & Media Law Reports 14 at page 241 where, at page 276 Lord Phillips MR said: "There is no reason why the procedure should not also be available in a suitable case for disposing of quantum alone once liability has been determined or admitted. The statute does not expressly limit the jurisdiction in this way and giving its language a purpose construction we do not think it was intended to do so. After all, as the judge said, a claim is not disposed of by the court until both liability and quantum have been decided. Summary disposal does of course give the claimant a right to ask for a declaration of falsity and an order that the defendant should publish an apology. Such remedies are not available ordinarily. So, in this case, the respondent would not be able to obtain an order for apology if his claim for damages was not disposed of summarily. This is an anomaly, but it is an anomaly which applies to any summary disposal at whatever stage this takes place. The defendant's position, however, will always be protected by the fact the judge has a discretion as to whether to make such an order." At the forefront of Mr Caldecott's submissions was the assertion that the claimant, Mr Mawdsley, has failed to mitigate his loss by unreasonably rejecting apologies offered by The Guardian, variously worded in an attempt to satisfy the claimant, and indeed by refusing to allow The Guardian to publish an apology. In my judgment, McGregor correctly states the law in paragraph 295, 16th ed I quote: "The extent of the damage resulting from a wrongful act whether tort or breach of contract, can often be considerably lessened by well advised action on the part of the person wronged. In such circumstances, the law requires him to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the defendant's wrong and refuses to allow him damages in respect of any part of the loss which is due to his neglect to take such steps. Even persons against whom wrongs have been committed are not entitled to sit back and suffer loss which could be avoided by reasonable efforts or to continue an activity unreasonably so as to increase the loss." As Pill LJ said in Saunders v Williams , reported 25th April 2002, at paragraph 22: "There was a burden on the defendant to establish that reasonable measures were not taken by the claimant to mitigate her loss." In my judgment, those principles are applicable to the tort of defamation as to any other tort. If a claimant acts unreasonably with regard to the content of a proffered apology, there will be a degree at least of failure on his part to mitigate his loss, which will sound in damages. A published apology had a twofold effect on the assessment of damage. To a greater or lesser degree, it vindicates the reputation of the victim of the libel and it assuages the injury to his feelings. Even a partial apology may, to an extent, achieve this result, so long as it is not reparative. Before considering in detail the comings and goings in respect of apologies, I shall consider what would be a minimum adequate award of damages, assuming judgment in default of defence, and no apology proffered. It could be strongly argued that the whole tone of the article containing the defamatory message was scoffing. It rubbished the sincerity of Mr Mawdsley's commitment to Burmese democracy. That is his stance on Burma is a meretricious launch pad for a political career in the Conservative party at a time when, as an emerging public figure, his integrity is vital. His integrity, as Mr Garnier, rightly said, is something that does go to the core of Mr Mawdsley's reputation, particularly for one starting on a public career and a public political career. The Guardian is a serious newspaper. It is politically influential and authoritative. The pleaded defamatory meaning is not merely of a ephemeral interest, but could have long-term repercussions for Mawdsley. During argument I suggested that the minimum adequate award of damages, and I emphasise minimum ignoring the other forms of relief under section 9 and any failure to mitigate, would be £50,000. That suggestion did not take into account the claim for aggravated damages, which is particularised in paragraph 6 of the particulars of claim. However, and in my judgment I am entitled to take a view certainly in an application for summary disposal; those particulars of aggravation, did not impress me. I do not consider that much could reasonably be added by way of aggravated damages in this case. It must be remembered that aggravated damages are purely compensatory for the increase damage or injury, occasioned by the defendant and suffered by the claimant. On reconsideration, I have reached the conclusion that my suggested minimum figure of £50,000 is far too high. It is equivalent to, in a personal injury assessment, to the amputation of a foot. Albeit that personal injury awards are not in many ways satisfactory comparators my considered view is that £30,000 would be the adequate minimum award at trial, the equivalent of the loss of sight of one eye. Mr Mawdsley, in his written statement, describes how the article came to be written. The authors approached him by an email on 6th April of last year, and he consented to two interviews with the authors on 12th April and on the following Good Friday at a restaurant and then a public house. He said: "I cooperated with them by answering their questions although I tried not to say anything of a political nature that might be used with regard to the general election. I left the second interview without any concerns about their intentions. It was when visiting an old family friend in Ormskirk, on 9th June, that the friend said that she had read the article with a result that later that day the claimant read the article." I quote from his statement: "Later that day I read the piece and was absolutely numb. What I read was so ludicrously false that I felt disorientated. Where on earth had this come from? The article was gutting. I put on a brave face, but inside I felt utterly dislodged." The claimant sought help from an American Law student, Mr Jarrid Genser, who had helped him bring international attention to his campaign in Burma, and who had helped in securing his release from prison. Mr Genser had represented the claimant in submissions that he had made to the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention. As a result, Mr Genser became the claimant's agent. I quote from the claimant's statement: "Jarrid and I discussed the article and he offered to send a letter of complaint to The Guardian, which he did by email dated 17th June 2001. To start with I really thought that we could work something suitable out with The Guardian. I assumed that the paper would be glad to swiftly print a strong apology and the whole thing could be put away." Bearing in mind that the claimant, albeit only at that time 28 years of age, was certainly a man of the world, a man with some experience and a man who had already by then become a Tory activist, it is worth noting that, at that stage, he was not suggesting that the injury to his reputation and the injury to his feelings called for some huge or substantial award of damages. Indeed, there is no mention of damages at all. What was in his mind was, as he put it, a strong, swift apology. The email from Mr Genser reinforces this. Mr Genser writes to the readers' editor of The Guardian on 17th June I quote: "Before I detail the facts I am specifically referring let me begin by saying I take no issue with the tone of the article although I strenuously disagree with it. I firmly believe reporters have the right to their perspective. I cannot however agree that they have a right to say whatever they like regardless of its truth." Then, Mr Genser goes on to specify inaccuracies: "1. He's given up Burma to become an activist for the Conservative party. 2. Finally in 1999 he crossed the Thai border to hand out his self paying booklet Real Freedom and was led off to jail he shouted you're an illegal in a moral crowd of terrorists." Nobody could suggest that that particular inaccuracy could have any defamatory meaning: "3. He has no opinion on whether, Su Ki is wining the fight for democracy or as some in her own party claim is a barrier to change. 4. He has no view on the debate ranging among Burma's democracy activist one faction hailing western sanctions for weakening the regime and another warning they only harm that Burmese people. 5. Diplomats in Rangoon confirm that when Mawdsley was eventually freed last October, it was as a result of the intervention of Premier Oil, a British company vilified for investing heavily in Burma." The email ends: "I'm deeply disturbed that The Guardian was not true to facts of James' case. If you wish to skewer him, so be it. You're entitled do that but you're not entitled to do it without being true to the facts." As I understand that paragraph Mr Genser is saying that The Guardian was entitled to publish comments, fair comments, based on true facts but not on false facts. Mr Mawdsley's complaint was dealt with by Mr Mayes, a very senior journalist, the readers' editor of The Guardian. In his statement Mr Mayes describes his role: "To collect, consider, investigate and respond to and, where appropriate, come to a conclusion about reader's comments, concerns and complaints in a prompt and a timely manner, from a position of independence within the paper. To seek the views and, where appropriate, the written comments of journalists whose work is the focus of reader's concerns. To take these views into account when responding to readers and to make critical appraisals if judged necessary on an objective and fully informed basis. To require of the editor, that he take steps to ensure that his staff co-operate fully and promptly with the readers' editor should they be requested to provide assistance in responding to readers' concerns and complaints. Similarly the management and commercial departments of The Guardian in so far as their activities relate to readers' concerns about editorial comment. In consultation with the editor and/or managing editor to decide whether and when a correction should be published and/or apologies tendered when deemed necessary. In so far as any correction, apology is not the subject of or may be prejudicial to a current complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. Our defence of an actual and possible legal action against the paper or actual or possible legal or other action by the effected journalist." I am entirely satisfied and in my judgment on this application I am entitled to reach that conclusion that Mr Mayes carried out his role in relation to Mr Mawdsley's complaint honourably, independently and competently. His task was not made easy and became very protracted because he not only had to deal with Mr Genser but also with Mr Mawdsley directly and their requirements as to the details and emphasis of the apology that they were asking for kept changing or shifting. On 19th June Mr Mayes acknowledged the complaint and said he had put the points that Mr Genser had made to the authors of the article for their response. On pages 4 - 6 are the answers of the journalists to the specific inaccuracies complained of by Mr Genser. As I understand it, those responses were passed on to Mr Genser, and on 21st June, Mr Genser replied with a six page email in which he said on page 14 of the court bundle: "In my view The Guardian should publish a statement that it apologises for the following inaccuracies in the story about James Mawdsley." And then sets out the five inaccuracies complained of. On 29th June, Mr Mawdsley himself sent an email to Mr Mayes: "On 9th June The Guardian Weekend Magazine ran a piece called 'Back packers crusaders'. It was inaccurate misleading and defamatory. I would like an apology along the following lines: The Guardian apologies to James Mawdsley for the article which appeared recently in the weekend magazine. We accept: 1. That Mr Mawdsley has the greatest respect for On Sang Su Ki an absolute trust in her leadership, judgment and policies. 2. That since being released from prison last October, Mr Mawdsley has been working extremely hard for the Burmese democracy movement and lobbying in Westminster, Brussels, Washington DC and giving numerous presentations across the UK on the Human Rights situation in Burma in addition to private charitable work. 3. Mr Mawdsley has strong support among Burmese for his action, especially those refugees and exiles on the Burma/Thai border and the prisoners in Ken Tung Prison. 4. That the article was inaccurate, misleading and distorted in numerous instances. Mr Mawdsley was unfairly misrepresented, and I hope you will contact me as soon as that and discuss the above. If The Guardian is not ready to apologise then I will ask Jarrid Genser to take the matter to the Press Complaints Commission. Jarrid represented me to the United Nations while I was in prison." On 2nd July Mr Mawdsley sent another email message to Mr Mayes, saying specifically, and I quote: "Jarrid Genser will be acting as my agent in the matter of the article 'Back packers crusade'. He has my full permission to deal with this case." Mr Mayes' suggested apology did not correspond with Mr Mawdsley's suggested apology. To a degree I can understand Mr Mawdsley's attitude. He did not regard the apology as fulsome and unreserved, and what Mr Mayes was offering did not amount to a confession of guilt by The Guardian that it had published misleading inaccurate and distorted information in general. On 2nd July, Mr Mayes sent a suggested apology and I quote: "In an article headed 'Back packers crusade weekend magazine page 48 - 51 June 9th, the authors said James Mawdsley who had entered three times to protest against the regime before being imprisoned there had given up Burma to become an activist for the Conservative party. Mr Mawdsley has asked us to say that he has continued to work hard for the Burmese democracy movement, lobbying at Westminster in Washington and Brussels speaking at meetings across the United Kingdom. He's asked us to make it clear he has the greatest respect for the pro democracy leader On Sang Su Ki and her policies. Further we have been asked to point out that Mr Mawdsley did not handout English language literature to the Burmese people all literature that he distributed is printed in Burmese. The Guardian accepts that and is sorry that these things were not made clear in the article." I can understand Mr Mawdsley cavilling at the way in which that apology was phrased. "Mr Mawdsley asked us" "he has asked"; "we have been asked", "The Guardian accepts and is sorry that these things were not made clear." Mr Mawdsley wanted a much clearer and firmer apology stating unequivocally that what had been said and what he had been complaining about was inaccurate and The Guardian was saying that rather than merely he was asking The Guardian to say it. Mr Genser replied to that suggested apology with a counter apology which was he wished to start: "The Guardian apologises to James Mawdsley for the inaccuracies in the article." Ending with these words "that the article was inaccurate, misleading and distorted in many instances, Mr Mawdsley was unfairly represented." So the protracted negotiations continued with on 2nd July Mr Mayes replying to Mr Genser: "Thanks for your reply to my email containing the proposed correction. I am sorry you find that you are unable to agree with it. May I ask you to consider it once more. I repeat I have spent a considerable amount of time looking at this complaint, I consider the resolution I have proposed to be fair. If you are unable to agree I have no alternative open to me but to place the matter in the hands of The Guardian's lawyers. I mediate and my capacity in that respect has been exhausted. I do not represent The Guardian. The lawyers do that and if you wish to go to the Press Complaints Commission." That followed a slightly varied apology tendered by Mr Mayes, which is to be found on page 26. That was rejected. Eventually, on 7th July Mr Genser replied: "I have spoken with Mr Mawdsley who finds the proposed apology wholly unsatisfactory given the breadth of inaccuriness, misleading and distorted statements. He does not agree to allow you to print that statement." Mr Mawdsley, then referred the matter to the Press Complaints Commission, in which he said, at page 31 and I quote: "Set out what he described as a suitable apology would be along the following lines. It will begin "The Guardian apologises to James Mawdsley for the inaccuracies in the article." Then ends with these words "that the article was inaccurate, misleading and distorted in many instances. Mr Mawdsley was unfairly represented". The final apology on the table, which is set out on page 59 of the court bundle was a variation of earlier apologies which, in my judgment, went a considerable way towards meeting Mr Mawdsley's requests. I quote it in full: "In an Article headed 'Back packers crusade' Weekend magazines pages 48 - 51 June 9th we wrote about James Mawdsley's experience in Burma. Mr Mawdsley has asked us to make clear that he has the greatest respect for the pro democracy leader Do Hung San Su Ki and her policies. The Guardian has also been informed and accepts that Mr Mawdsley has continued to work for the Burmese democracy movement lobbying at Westminster and Washington in Brussels and speaking at meetings across the United Kingdom. We have also been asked to point out that Mr Mawdsley did not hand out English language literature to the Burmese people and that all the literature he distributed was printed in Burmese. The camp Mr Mawdsley lived in was a rebel camp, not a refugee camp which was near the border with Thailand but located in Burma. The Guardian accepts this and apologies for the inaccuracies in the article." It should be noted that The Guardian does not say that The Guardian accepts this and apologises for these inaccuracies in the article, but the inaccuracies, whatever they are, according to Mr Mawdsley, in the article as a whole. On 11th October, Mr Gore, of the Press Complaints Commission, wrote to Mr Genser, suggesting that the apology should be considered carefully and that eventually nothing having been resolved the matter was considered by the Commission and in a letter from Mr Gore, of the Commission, to Mr Genser, this was said, and I quote: "The Commission considered the newspaper's proposal was a reasonable response to your request for a correction and apology and have consequently no further action was necessary on the part of the Commission. The Commission did hope that you would now take up the newspapers offer." Mr Mawdsley did not but went to solicitors, the well-known defamation solicitors of Peter Carter Ruck & Partners. A letter before action on page 128 was written on 21st December of last year. In the third paragraph, these words: "The article is highly defamatory of our client and its allegations are without foundation. In short it implies our client is a charlatan with regard to his professed interest in democracy and human abuses in Burma and his actions in that regard." It goes on to say: "Despite the obvious intent behind the article and its highly damaging and offensive nature until now our client has sought only the publication of an agreed apology from The Guardian towards mitigating the damage caused to his reputation. In this regard our client had hoped that the PCC would assist. However, still you have refused to apologise in terms which are satisfactory to him. Our client is also extremely concerned you continue to publish the article about which he complains on your web site so that anyone who is interested in him could read it although you have accepted that it contains substantial inaccuracies. We make it clear that our client had no wish to be in dispute with The Guardian however he is not prepared to stand by and allow his reputation to be smeared and diminished by an unfounded attack upon his character and reputation without receiving an appropriate apology. In this regard your refusal to apologise in satisfactory terms has exacerbated the position, so that now, in any event, our client will require a statement in open court as part of any settlement and also require the payment of compensation to vindicate his reputation." So at last there was a claim for damages. The Guardian replied on 17th January, saying that the article had been removed from the website and the database, and say "I seek your response why your client is not prepared to accept the PCC's finding that our apology is reasonable." A more detailed response after they had taken instructions was given by Oswangs the solicitors for The Guardian in a letter of the 29th April and in that they give notice that they are making an offer of amends. And the offer of amends of the same date, reads as follows: "Our client hereby makes a qualified offer to make amends under section 2 of the Defamation Act 1996 in respect of the following meaning article complained of. That your client has abandoned the Burmese people and/or the cause of democracy in Burma being more concerned to use his fame to build a career as a Conservative politician in the United Kingdom." Although that meaning is not the same meaning as the defamatory meaning pleaded in paragraph 4 of the particulars of claim, it is a defamatory meaning which goes a long way towards the defamatory meaning pleaded in the particulars of claim. The letter goes on: "Pursuant to this offer our client agrees to publish the suitable correction to the article complained of and a sufficient apology to your client. 2. To publish the correction and apology in a manner reasonable and practicable in circumstances and to pay such compensation if any and such costs as may be agreed or determined to the payable." That offer of amends was rejected by the claimant. In my judgment the defendants have established that the claimant has unreasonably failed to mitigate his loss. Certainly, the final offer by The Guardian of apology, which the PCC regarded as a reasonable response would have given Mr Mawdsley, in my judgment, the substance of what he had been asking for. In my judgment, there has been a degree of obtuseness on the part of Mr Mawdsley in relation to the offered apologies. Certainly, if the final offer of apology had been accepted a significant vindication of his reputation should have been achieved and the injury to his feelings much assuaged thereby substantially reducing the amount of damages that could be properly award to him. Having regard to the extent of my powers in granting summary relief as a package, including an award of damages not exceeding £10,000, which is the equivalent to the loss of an index finger, the defendants have satisfied me that summary relief will adequately compensate Mr Mawdsley for the wrong he has suffered. Having regard to the respective conduct of the parties since publication of the article, and the early stage of Mr Mawdsley's career as a politician, in my discretion I grant the defendant's application for summary disposal. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII