Ronaldo v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2009] EWHC 2862 (QB) (14 October 2009)

Ronaldo v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2009] EWHC 2862 (QB) (14 October 2009)

The actions should be tried separately due to significant differences in the articles and defences, and the risk of prejudice to the Telegraph if tried together outweighs any cost savings or convenience. Costs relating to the withdrawal of the fair comment defence by the Telegraph are not to be awarded against it, as the withdrawal was a legitimate response to the Claimant's amendment of the pleaded meaning.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2862
Parties
Claimant: Cristiano Ronaldo; Defendant: Mirror Group Newspapers Limited; Defendant: Telegraph Media Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Libel Actions (civil) / Pre Trial Review and Costs Directions
Outcome
Actions to be tried separately; costs orders as per draft orders submitted by Telegraph, with specified exceptions.
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification, Fair Comment, Aggravated Damages, Case Management, Costs Orders
Defamation Media Law Libel Justification Fair Comment Aggravated Damages Case Management Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cristiano Ronaldo

Claimant

Mirror Group Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Telegraph Media Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Actions (civil) / Pre Trial Review and Costs Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the libel actions against Mirror Group Newspapers Limited and Telegraph Media Group Limited should be tried together or separately
  2. 2 Allocation of costs following amendments to pleadings and withdrawal of defences

Ratio Decidendi

The actions should be tried separately due to significant differences in the articles and defences, and the risk of prejudice to the Telegraph if tried together outweighs any cost savings or convenience. Costs relating to the withdrawal of the fair comment defence by the Telegraph are not to be awarded against it, as the withdrawal was a legitimate response to the Claimant's amendment of the pleaded meaning.

Court Disposition

Actions to be tried separately; costs orders as per draft orders submitted by Telegraph, with specified exceptions.

Orders

  • The Mirror and Telegraph actions will be tried separately, with the Telegraph action to follow the Mirror action.
  • Costs relating to the withdrawal of the fair comment defence by the Telegraph are not awarded against it, except for costs relating to the withdrawal of qualified privilege, which are to be paid by the Telegraph to the Claimant.