Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd. [2004] EWHC 2786 (QB) (02 December 2004)

Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd. [2004] EWHC 2786 (QB) (02 December 2004)

The articles, in their natural and ordinary meaning, imputed that the claimant was in Saddam Hussein's pay, received substantial secret payments from the Iraqi regime for personal benefit, and used the Mariam Appeal as a front for such dealings. The Reynolds qualified privilege defence failed because the defendant did not meet the standards of responsible journalism, including adequate verification and fair opportunity for comment. The fair comment defence was not available as the underlying facts were not established and the repetition rule applied. The words were seriously defamatory of the claimant.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2786 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: George Galloway MP; Defendant: Telegraph Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment After Trial by Judge Alone
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Reynolds Defence, Fair Comment, Meaning of Defamatory Words, Damages
Media Law Defamation Qualified Privilege Reynolds Defence Fair Comment Meaning of Defamatory Words 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Galloway MP

Claimant

Telegraph Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Judgment After Trial by Judge Alone

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of?
  2. 2 Does the Reynolds qualified privilege defence apply to the publications?
  3. 3 Is the defence of fair comment available to the defendant?

Ratio Decidendi

The articles, in their natural and ordinary meaning, imputed that the claimant was in Saddam Hussein's pay, received substantial secret payments from the Iraqi regime for personal benefit, and used the Mariam Appeal as a front for such dealings. The Reynolds qualified privilege defence failed because the defendant did not meet the standards of responsible journalism, including adequate verification and fair opportunity for comment. The fair comment defence was not available as the underlying facts were not established and the repetition rule applied. The words were seriously defamatory of the claimant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages to the claimant
  • Defendant to publish a suitable correction and apology