Levi v Bates [2009] EWHC 1495 (QB) (02 July 2009)

Levi v Bates [2009] EWHC 1495 (QB) (02 July 2009)

The court found that the publications were defamatory of the claimant, imputing dishonesty, blackmail, and conduct deterring investment. The defences of qualified privilege and fair comment failed because the publications were widely disseminated beyond those with a legitimate interest and contained statements of fact rather than comment. The defence of justification failed as the defendant did not prove the substantial truth of the allegations. The claimant was entitled to compensatory damages.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1495 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Melvyn Levi; Defendant: Ken Bates
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / High Court Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Justification, Fair Comment, Aggravated Damages
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Qualified Privilege Justification Fair Comment Aggravated 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melvyn Levi

Claimant

Ken Bates

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / High Court Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the four publications by the defendant were defamatory of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the defences of qualified privilege, justification, or fair comment apply to the publications
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensatory or aggravated damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the publications were defamatory of the claimant, imputing dishonesty, blackmail, and conduct deterring investment. The defences of qualified privilege and fair comment failed because the publications were widely disseminated beyond those with a legitimate interest and contained statements of fact rather than comment. The defence of justification failed as the defendant did not prove the substantial truth of the allegations. The claimant was entitled to compensatory damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay compensatory damages to the claimant
  • Defendant to publish an appropriate correction or apology