Publishers, HarperCollins, and author, Catherine Belton, have recently had libel proceedings issued against them by Roman Abramovich in respect of a book that they published, titled ‘Putin’s People’. Mr Abramovich has claimed that the book contains “false or misleading statements” about both him and Chelsea Football Club. The offending book contains a number of potentially defamatory statements about Mr Abramovich including repeating Sergei Pugachev’s claims that Mr Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003 on the personal orders of Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin.
It is reported that Mr Abramovich attempted to resolve matters without the need for legal proceedings. In a statement released to the press, Mr Abramovich confirmed:
“My objective has been to avoid a legal case and my legal team has engaged with the publishers to try to find an amicable resolution. We have provided them with detailed information addressing the various false allegations about me in the book, including the repetition of allegations that have already been held to be false in the English High Court during previous legal proceedings. Unfortunately, these engagements were not successful, and the publisher has not corrected the false statements in the book.”
Assuming Mr Abramovich’s comments regarding the pre-action stage of proceedings are accurate, it is surprising that the Defendants were not quick to amend the comments in the book. The decision not to do so may have been driven partly by economics. With a book, the cost of recalling all issued copies and making amendments would be very expensive indeed whereas if the offending comments are made online, it can potentially be rectified with little to no cost to the Defendant. Whilst we have been unable to locate details of a filed defence in the matter, given that matters were not resolved pre-action, it is highly likely that the matter will be defended. The possible defences available to the publishers could be:
- The Truth;
- Honest Opinion; and/or
- A public interest defence.
The Truth
In this specific case, the Defendants may struggle to allege that the statements made were substantially true as required by the Defamation Act 2013. By way of example, The Independent reported that Sergei Pugachev’s comments were already tested in Court in a different Court case and were found to be ‘self-serving’ and ‘impossible to believe’ by Mrs Justice Rose.
Honest Opinion
Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion as follows:
“(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the following conditions are met.
(2) The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion.
(3) The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.
(4) The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of—
(a) any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published;
(b) anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.
(5) The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that the defendant did not hold the opinion…”
It is unclear from the information available what evidence the ‘opinion’ by Mr Pugachev that Mr Abramovich was ordered to purchase Chelsea by Putin was based on. Given the comments of Mrs Justice Rose, the comments were probably not supported by much in terms of documentary evidence. The question therefore as to whether an honest person could have held the opinion that Mr Pugachev’s comments were accurate could well turn on the timings of the earlier Court case and the publication of the offending comments in the book. If Mrs Justice Rose’s comments post-date publication, it is conceivable that the author could have held the opinion adopted by Mr Pugachev based entirely on his testimony. If, however, the book was published after Mrs Justice Rose’s comments, it becomes more difficult to see how an honest person could have held the opinion in question based on the evidence available at the time.
Public Interest
The details of the requirements of a public interest defence are discussed in our recent blog. Such a defence will always turn on the available evidence. As with the Lachaux case, if there is limited available documentary evidence to support the decision-making process, the defence of the comments being in the public interest will often fail.
It will be interesting to see which of the above defences the Defendants will attempt to avail themselves of.
How Nelsons can help
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team.
Should you be affected by any defamatory comments, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.