Full case report
Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd (No 3)
Reference  EWHC 1058 (QB)
Court Queen's Bench Division
Judge Eady J
Date of Judgment 20 Apr 2011
Defamation – aggravated damages – malice – disclosure – case management
C, a social worker employed by Haringey Council, sued D for libel in 35 articles accusing her of wrongdoing in connection with the Baby P and Victoria Climbie cases. The sole defence advanced was justification. C claimed aggravated damages on the grounds, among others, that she had been hurt by the knowledge that D had published in a recklessly irresponsible way, knowing that it had no sound evidence to support what it alleged. C applied for specific disclosure of documents relevant to D’s state of knowledge. D cross-applied to strike out this aspect of the aggravated damages claim. D argued that D’s case involved an inadequately particularised charge of malice; that D’s state of mind was irrelevant in any event; and that the plea should be ruled out on case management grounds.
(1) Should C’s aggravated damages plea be struck out?
(2) Was C entitled to the specific disclosure sought?
(1) The aggravated damages plea should be struck out in so far as it alleged recklessly irresponsible conduct as a fact, rather than that C had suffered hurt feelings because of her belief that D had acted in such a way. There was merit in all three of D’s grounds of objection, but the main point was that aggravated damages are for hurt feelings and it is immaterial whether or not a claimant’s belief is correct as a matter of fact. ‘What the eye does not see …’ The House of Lords and Court of Appeal authority relied on by C was not inconsistent with this principle.
(2) Accordingly, the specific disclosure application should be dismissed. The disclosure sought was not relevant to any matter which was properly in issue between the parties.
A useful reminder of the irrelevance of enquiries into the quality of a defendant’s journalism, when the sole issue on liability is the truth or otherwise of the allegations complained of. Even if aggravated damages are sought on the basis that the claimant’s feelings were injured by a perception that the defendant was reckless, or the like, it will not generally be relevant to enquire into the actual state of the defendant’s mind. The Judge referred to s 35 of the New South Wales Defamation Act as representing English law. It provides that the court should disregard the defendant’s malice or other state of mind except to the extent it affects the harm sustained by the claimant.
Taylor Hampton for the Claimant; Farrer & Co for the Defendant
More from 5RB
5RB is the pre-eminent set in the area for handling defamation, privacy, contempt and data protection matters. Interviewees praise the set for having great depth and quality of counsel, and note that it boasts many of the top barristers in the field. Get the lowdown here.
New 22nd Edition of Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, published by Sweet & Maxwell. Further info here.