The recently decided case of Sube v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Express Newspapers is a prime example of how a case that is not properly thought through and/or pleaded can result in loss of the claim before it reaches trial.
Sube v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Express Newspapers
Case background
This case involved a married couple with eight children, who were housed by the Council. The couple appeared in a local newspaper as they were complaining about cramped living accommodation, given the size of the family. Unfortunately for the Sube family, their claims of cramped accommodation appear to have struck a chord with the national press, as they published a number of articles about the couple, including:
- An article in the Sun headed ‘Are they serious? First picture of four-bed house that jobless couple with eight kids slammed council for offering.’; and
- Another published by the Daily Express with the headline ‘Shameless French family-of-10 demand MANSION: benefits dad rejects 5 bed as “too cramped”’.
What then ensued was the usual negative comments from readers that are fairly prevalent now days on the internet.
Legal claim
The Claimants brought a claim against the Defendants seeking damages and an injunction claiming that the allegations were libellous and amounted to harassment pursuant to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA).
The Claimants subsequently sought to expand their claim following further articles that were published alleging breaches of the Equality Act 2010 (EA), breaches of duty pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and malicious falsehood.
The matter was listed in front of Mr Justice Warby for a preliminary issue hearing on meaning to be attributed to the comments made in the various articles in addition to an application to strike out/disallow the amendments sought to be made by the Claimants.
Mr Justice Warby reached the following conclusions:
“… The conclusions I have reached, for the reasons that follow, are these:
(1) Defamation. On the trial of the preliminary issues I find that the articles complained of did not convey any defamatory factual imputations about the claimants. They did contain or imply a number of derogatory comments or opinions about them. But none of those comments or opinions was, considered individually, sufficiently harmful to either claimant’s reputation to satisfy the serious harm requirement laid down by s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. It would seem to follow that the libel claims fail, but that is subject to one issue, explained at [43] below.
(2) Serious harm. I have been able to reach the above conclusions without the need for an amended pleading on this issue. If the case were to continue the pleaded case on serious harm would need amendment, but it is not irremediable as a pleading.
(3) The Comment Posts. I decline to strike out the whole of paragraphs 5 and 8 of the Particulars of Claim, as sought by the defendants. But I strike out the sentence in each of those paragraphs which alleges that the Comment Posts “contained words that are defamatory of the Claimants”, under CPR 3.4(2)(b). I also direct that the Particulars of Claim be amended so as to make it explicit that there is no defamation claim in respect of the Comment Posts.
(4) Harassment. I grant the application for permission to amend this claim to encompass the Comment Posts.
(5) Exemplary damages. Paragraph 13 of the Particulars of Claim is struck out as disclosing no reasonable basis for such a claim.
(6) Malicious falsehood. The amendment to the claim form is disallowed pursuant to CPR 17.2 and paragraphs 14 to 19 of the Particulars of Claim and the relevant parts of the prayer for relief are struck out, for failure to disclose any reasonable basis for a claim.
(7) EA. The amendment to the claim form is disallowed pursuant to CPR 17.2, and paragraphs 28 to 35 of the Particulars of Claim and the relevant parts of the prayer for relief are struck out; both measures are taken on the grounds that the statements of case disclose no reasonable basis for a claim. The proposed amendments are refused, for the same reason.
(8) DPA. I decline to disallow the amendment to the claim form, or to strike out the claim as pleaded in the Particulars of Claim, which in my judgment disclose a reasonable basis for a claim. But I stay that claim for the time being. So far as News Group is concerned, I do so pursuant to DPA s 32(4). So far as the Express is concerned, I do so under the inherent jurisdiction and the Court’s case management powers. I refuse permission to make the proposed amendments to the DPA claim, on the grounds that these fall a long way short of the applicable pleading standards, and are likely to obstruct the just disposal of the action.”
The Judge further struck out the malicious falsehood allegation due to pleading deficiencies and stayed the DPA claim on the basis that is was not properly formulated. The Judge made an indication (but did not decide on the issue yet) that the Defendants had been the more successful in the claim and accordingly were likely to be awarded their costs. The Defendants costs budgets in the matter were set at £28,800 (News Group) and £18,550 (Express).
This case clearly demonstrated that this are of law is extremely complex and accordingly specialist advice is highly advisable so as to avoid expensive mistakes.
How Nelsons can help
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team.
If you have any questions in relation to the subjects discussed in this article, please contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.