Bruno Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Nicklin |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2014-004925-26 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2021] EWHC 1797 (QB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Nicklin
Case No: QB-2014-004925-26
QB-2015-005378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Adrienne Page QC and Godwin Busuttil (instructed by Taylor Hampton Solicitors Ltd) for the Claimant
David Price QC and Jonathan Price (instructed by David Price Solicitors) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 22–24 February and 1 March 2021
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Nicklin
This is the judgment following the trial of the Claimant's claims for libel against the two publishers of newspaper articles published in January-February 2014. It is divided into the following sections:
A: The Claimant
| Section | Paragraphs | |
| A. | The Claimant | [2] – [3] |
| B. | The Defendants | [4] – [5] |
| C. | Publication of the Articles and their natural and ordinary meaning | [6] – [13] |
| D. | The Defendants' Defence | [14] – [17] |
| E. | Determination of Serious Harm | [18] – [19] |
| F. | The facts and the evidence | [20] – [124] |
| (1) | Relevant Codes of Practice/Conduct | [23] – [29] |
| (2) | Publication of the Independent Article | [30] – [51] |
| (3) | Publication of the Standard Article | [52] – [85] |
| (4) | High Court Family proceedings between the Claimant and Afsana | [86] – [90] |
| (5) | Subsequent amendments to the online articles | [91] – [104] |
| (6) | Fading memories and lack of contemporaneous documentation | [105] – [124] |
| F. | s.4 Defamation Act 2013: Publication on a matter of public interest | [125] – [159] |
| G. | The agreed issues for determination | [160] – [205] |
| (1) | Liability for publication of the original articles | [162] – [191] |
| (a) First Defendant | [162] – [177] | |
| (b) Second Defendant | [178] – [191] | |
| (2) | Liability for continued publication of the articles online | [192] – [206] |
| H. | Remedies | [207] – [245] |
| (1) | Damages and aggravated damages | [208] – [235] |
| (a) the Law | [209] – [211] | |
| (b) Evidence | [212] – [219] | |
| (c) Submissions | [220] – [225] | |
| (d) Decision | [226] – [235] | |
| (2) | Injunction | [236] – [241] |
| (3) | Publication of a summary of the Court's judgment: s.12 Defamation Act 2013 | [242] – [245] |
| The articles complained of, as originally published | Appendix 1 | |
| Extracts from the cross-examination of Mr Gore | Appendix 2 |
The Claimant is a French citizen. He is an aerospace engineer, who graduated from the University of Paul Sabatier in Toulouse with a degree in Aerospace Mechanical Systems Design. He is also a Master of Sciences in Aerospace Design. The Claimant has spent a professional career in the aerospace industry and is a teacher and instructor at the Khalifa air military college in Abu Dhabi and presently lives in the United Arab Emirates.
He met Afsana Shukur (“Afsana”), a British citizen, in New Delhi in February 2008. They married in London in February 2010 and their child, Louis, was born in Dubai on 4 April 2010. The marriage broke down, and, in April 2011, the Claimant began divorce proceedings in the UAE courts. He sought custody of Louis. In March 2012, Afsana went into hiding with Louis in the UAE, claiming that she would not get a fair trial in its courts. In August 2012, the UAE court granted a divorce to the Clamant and awarded him custody of Louis. Afsana did not comply with the Court's custody order, and, in February 2013, the Claimant initiated a criminal prosecution against her for abduction of Louis. In October of that year, having discovered Louis' whereabouts, the Claimant took possession of him under the custody order. The breakdown in the relationship and the court proceedings in the UAE provide the immediate context for the articles at the heart of this libel action.
B: The Defendants
At the relevant time, the First Defendant published The Independent and had a sister publication, the i newspaper. The Independent is, and was then, published online at www.independent.co.uk. At that time, Alastair Dawber, Andrew Johnson and Christopher Green were, respectively, the Foreign Editor, Assistant News Editor and Deputy News Editor of The Independent. The News Editor at the time was Matthew Moore and the Editor was Amol Rajan.
The Second Defendant publishes the Evening Standard newspaper, in print and online at www.standard.co.uk. At the relevant time, Charlotte Ross was the Joint Deputy Editor and Susannah Butter was a feature writer at the Evening Standard. Sarah Sands was the Editor of the newspaper.
C: Publication of the Articles and their natural and ordinary meaning
The first article was published by the First Defendant in The Independent, on 25 January 2014, under the headline: “ British mother faces jail in Dubai after husband claims she kidnapped their son” (“the Independent Article”). The Independent Article, which appeared across two pages of the newspaper, was written by Alastair Sloan, a freelance journalist. An abbreviated version of the Independent Article was also published by the First Defendant in the i newspaper.
There followed, on 10 February 2014, an article, written by Susannah Butter, published by the Second Defendant, in the Evening Standard, under the headline: “ Dubai's a small place – he took Louis in an instant” (“the Standard Article”).
Both articles were published online from the date of first publication. They have remained online since, although they have been amended several times since publication. The text of the two articles – as originally published – is set out in Appendix 1 to this judgment.
The Claimant brought separate claims against each Defendant in respect of the respective articles, but the actions have progressed in tandem through the interim phases of the litigation and have been tried together. The Claimant also brought a further claim over articles that appeared in the Huffington Post at around the same time, but this claim was settled (see further [213] below).
The parties had agreed the publication figures in England & Wales for print editions of the relevant newspapers as follows:
i) the Independent Article: between 154,370 and 231,555 readers of The Independent and between 523,518 and 785,277 readers of the i newspaper; and
ii) the Standard Article: between 1.67–2.5 million readers.
For online publication of the articles:
i) between first publication and 12 June 2015, 5,178 unique visitors from the UK to the Independent Article; and
ii) between first publication and 15 June 2015, 1,585 unique visitors from the UK to the Standard Article
Updated traffic data was provided by the Defendants in July 2020 as follows:
i) in the period between June 2015 and February 2017, the Independent Article had 274 unique visitors and the Standard Article had 245 unique visitors; and
ii) in the period between March 2017 and April 2020, the Independent Article had 405 unique visitors, of which 200 were from the UK, and the Standard Article had 263 visitors, of which 180 were from the UK.
Sir David Eady determined the natural and ordinary meaning of the articles following a trial of preliminary issues on 11 March 2015: [2015] EWHC 620 (QB) [40]–[41].
(1) The Judge found that the meaning of the Independent Article was that the Claimant:
“(i) became violent towards his ex-wife Afsana soon after the birth of their son, which caused her, fearing for her safety, to escape and go on the run with the child;
(ii) having tracked Afsana down, callously and without justification snatched their son back from his mother's arms (and has never returned him);
(iii) falsely accused Afsana of kidnapping their son, a false charge which if upheld could result in her, quite unfairly and wrongly, spending several years in a Dubai jail;
(iv) was content to use Emirati law and its law enforcement system, which discriminate against women, in order to deprive Afsana of custody of and access to their son Louis;
(v) hid the child's French passport and refused to allow him to be registered as a British citizen, as Afsana wished;
(vi) was violent, abusive and controlling and caused Afsana to fear for her own safety;
(vii) caused her passport to be confiscated thus for her to be trapped in the UAE; and
(viii) obtained custody on a false basis and also initiated a prosecution of Afsana in the UAE, which was founded upon a false allegation of abduction, and which gave rise to the risk of a lengthy prison sentence there.”
It is common ground that this is also the meaning of the i article.
(2) The meaning of the Standard Article was found to be that the Claimant:
“(i) became violent and abusive towards his ex-wife Afsana within months of marrying her, beating her and leaving her with bruises on at least one occasion;
(ii) assaulted Afsana in public on custody visits relating to their young son;
(iii) attempted to snatch their son on one custody visit, leaving him with a badly bruised head;
(iv) callously and without justification snatched their son from out of his pushchair in the street (and has never returned him);
(v) subjected Afsana to the injustice of facing jail in Dubai for ‘abducting’ her own child, when in truth she had only fled with him to escape the Claimant's violent abuse;
(vi) having chosen to obtain a divorce in a Sharia court, also used Emirati law and its law enforcement system, which discriminate against women, in order to deprive Afsana of custody of and access to their son Louis;
(vii) hid the child's French passport and refused to allow him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siobhain Crosbie v Caroline Ley
...that I award a global sum to reflect all of the heads of damage including aggravated damages; cf Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB), [227]; Blackledge v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 1994 (KB), [34]–[35]; Ware v French [2022] EWHC 3030 (KB), [142]. In Blackledge (a case o......
-
Rachel Riley v Mike Sivier
...sector of his life, that will reduce the harm: see, albeit in the context of assessment of damages: Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB); [2022] E.M.L.R. 2, Nicklin J, [209]; and Lachaux, Lord Sumption, [16] (and see the recognition that assessment of whether the serious h......
-
James Palmer v PC Colin Farmer
...“ the full picture” where there are multiple libels: Gatley (13 th Edition) at §10–013, citing Lachaux v Independent Print Media [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB) at [222]. I refer to this provision because it is relied upon by the Defendants in support of their Jameel abuse application. The arguments......
-
Arron Banks v Carole Cadwalladr
...sector of his life, that will reduce the harm: see, albeit in the context of assessment of damages: Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB), [2022] EMLR 2, Nicklin J, [209]; and Lachaux, Lord Sumption, [16] (and see the recognition that assessment of whether the serious harm ......
-
Taming the ‘Chilling Effect’ of Defamation Law: English Experience and Implications for Australia
...v WSJ (n 111) and Flood (n 111).165. Ibid [139].166. Economou CA (n 135) [109].167. Ibid.168. Ibid.169. Lachaux v Independent Print [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB) (‘Lachaux HC 2’).242 Federal Law Review in particular, and, although this new defence includes a specific requirement that courts take i......