Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWHC 4075 (QB) (19 December 2013)

Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWHC 4075 (QB) (19 December 2013)

The defendant's continued online publication of the defamatory article after being notified of the claimant's exoneration, without update or correction, was not responsible journalism and was not protected by privilege. The persistence in a plea of justification and aggressive litigation conduct aggravated the harm. The claimant is entitled to substantial damages for the limited period of unprivileged publication to vindicate his reputation and compensate for distress.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 4075 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Gary Flood; Defendant: Times Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Assessment of Damages Following Withdrawal of Justification Defence
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant; damages awarded.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege (reynolds Defence), Justification, Damages, Vindication, Aggravated Damages
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Qualified Privilege (reynolds Defence) Justification Damages Vindication +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Flood

Claimant

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Assessment of Damages Following Withdrawal of Justification Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether continued online publication of defamatory article after exoneration constituted actionable libel
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum of damages for post-privilege publication
  3. 3 Effect of defendant's conduct and persistence in justification on damages

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's continued online publication of the defamatory article after being notified of the claimant's exoneration, without update or correction, was not responsible journalism and was not protected by privilege. The persistence in a plea of justification and aggressive litigation conduct aggravated the harm. The claimant is entitled to substantial damages for the limited period of unprivileged publication to vindicate his reputation and compensate for distress.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant; damages awarded.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £60,000 in damages for libel.
  • Defendant to pay claimant's costs.