Christopher Williams (Respondent (Plaintiff) v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd (Appellants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE PURCHAS,LORD JUSTICE GLIDEWELL,LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 1990 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1990] EWCA Civ J1219-7 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 90/1139 |
| Date | 19 December 1990 |
[1990] EWCA Civ J1219-7
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
POPPLEWELL J.
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Purchas
Lord Justice Glidewell
and
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith
90/1139
MR. D. EADY Q.C and MR. A. CALDECOTT (instructed by Messrs Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
MR. P. MILMO Q.C. and MR. MARK WARBY (instructed by Messrs Tucker Turner Kingsley Wood & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
This is an appeal by Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Limited ("the Mirror") from verdicts of the jury and judgments entered in two consolidated actions on 16th October 1989: in action number 1079, an award of damages in the sum of £100,000 and in action number 1080 an award of damages in the sum of £65,000. The trial was conducted in the Queen's Bench Division before Popplewell J. and concerned the issue of damages only. The awards were made in favour of Christopher Neville Williams the plaintiff (to whom I shall hereafter refer by his professional name "Miller"). As a journalist he wrote under the name of Kit Miller. He also worked as a public relations consultant. The Mirror admitted liability making no plea of justification in defence. Miller shortly before the trial abandoned his claims for special damages and exemplary damages so that the only issue before the jury was that of general damages including, of course, aggravated damages.
The libels with which action 1079 was concerned were published in the Daily Mirror Newspapers on five days between 20th January and 18th February 1988. Action 1080 related to a single publication in "The People" of 7th February, 1988.
The history of the publications and their context can be shortly summarised. The subject matter was the promotion by Miller in association with a man called Foster of slimming pills known as "Trimmer". These had previously been marketed by Miller and Foster under other names e.g. "Guar Gum" and "Slim-Liner". As a result of programmes presented by Miss Esther Rantzen in her "That's Life" series on B.B.C. Television starting in February and culminating in July 1987 the project failed, and "Guar Gum" was discredited and withdrawn from the market. In these programmes Miller was merely referred to as "Spokesman" for Guar Gum and the Foster Company. There appears to have been no direct attack on Miller personally. During these programmes a Dr. Hockaday, who had previously endorsed Guar Gum with enthusiasm, withdrew his support and said that in future his name was not to be associated with the product.
Undeterred by the failure of Guar Gum, Foster announced to Miller that "as he had a warehouse full of the stuff" and since he was convinced that it was an effective slimming aid he was going to market it under a different name. Miller continued to support Foster in this enterprise, asserting that he trusted Foster and also believed that it was an effective slimming aid. The new name chosen was "Trimmer". The new enterprise came to the attention of the Mirror who ran a series of articles now admitted it be defamatory, the sting of which was that Miller was a confidence trickster and that he had deluded a number of distinguished and well-known people into using the pills and had thereby derived considerable profit. The articles were substantial, and were prominently displayed in the newspapers concerned. They were pleaded in full in the appropriate paragraphs of the statement of claim. It is sufficient for me to summarise them under their headings and dates:
(1) 20th January 1988. " Botham's fury at miracle slimming pill con". This article alleged that amongst others a well-known cricketer had been duped by Miller into using Trimmer pills, and that in the past Miller had made a fortune "by peddling Guar Gum and Slim-Liner".
(2) 22nd January 1988. " The con makes a fortune. Slimming pills they just don't work". This was a direct attack on Miller and referred again to Trimmers in connection with the fraudulent marketing in the past of Guar Gum and a special tea called Bai Lin Tea. The article further alleged that Miller had lied (1) by claiming that Ian Botham had benefitted by losing weight by taking Trimmer and (2) by claiming that "Fergie" (the Duchess of York) had become slimmer owing to this controversial tea.
(3) 5th February. 1988"Police probe Sam's slim pill conmen". This article referred to both Miller and Foster in relation to a model who was a girlfriend of each of them, whose name was Samantha Fox who herself was well-known as a "topless model" whose pictures frequently appeared in the tabloid press. It referred to the previous allegation relating to Mr. Botham and also to an extremely unsavoury arrangement alleged to have been made between Miller and the editor of a Sunday newspaper (undisclosed) to disclose intimate sexual details of the association between Miller and Samantha Fox, in exchange for the promotion of Trimmer in the newspaper concerned.
(4) 6th February 1988
" Mirror stops the Sam Fox conmen
Banned
Slim pill firm tells cheats: Get Lost"
This was followed by a long and scandalous article, referring to investigations by the police into "a £2m. slimming pill rip-off by two ex-boyfriends of topless model" (Foster and Miller).
(5) 18th February, 1988. Topless model Samantha Fox has been questioned by detectives investigating allegations of a £2m. slimming pill rip-off. This article repeated the references to the connection between Miller and Samantha Fox and the offer to trade intimate details of his romance with her in return for publicity.
The defamatory article which forms the subject matter of action 1080 was published in The People newspaper of the 7th February, 1988 under the heading "Plug my slimming diet and I will reveal bedroom secrets—DIRTY SEX LIES OF SAM'S EX-LOVER", this was followed by a substantial scandalous and defamatory article of considerable length and detail. It repeated the references to Samantha Fox and introduced others whom it was alleged had been defrauded e.g. Michelle Deakin. The article referred to the arrangement "to disclose" details of the sexual relationships (untrue in the event) supposedly enjoyed by Foster and Miller. This time the Sunday newspaper which had not been disclosed in the Daily Mirror was identified as the News of the World.
Notwithstanding the issue of the proceedings by way of writ followed by a statement of claim on 11th April 1988 the Mirror published further defamatory articles in three separate issues of the Daily Mirror over the Whitsun weekend on 28th, 30th and 31st May 1988. These articles were not the subject matter of specific claims for damages but were relevant and were considered as an aggravating feature to be taken into account when assessing the damages to be awarded in respect of the libels published in January and February. It is convenient to note at this stage that there were other publications with which the Mirror was not concerned relating to these matters, firstly in the Esther Rantzen programmes to which I have already made reference. These were broadcast on a number of occasions between 1st February 1987 and May 1988. Secondly, there were articles, in a similar vein to those in the Daily Mirror, which were published in the News of the World on 12th July 1987 and 5th June 1988 and one article in the Sunday Sport newspaper on 22nd March 1987.
By their notice of appeal the Mirror seek an order for a re-trial upon a number of grounds which were developed by Mr. Eady who appeared for them below and in this court. He submitted that these either individually or collectively would justify this court in making such an order. The first ground was that the figure awarded by the jury on each of the two actions was so excessive as to justify intervention by the court on the basis now well established and recently summarised in the judgment of Lord Donaldson of Lymington M.R. in Sutcliffe v. Pressdram Ltd. [1990] 2 W.L.R. 271 at 287F. Alternatively, Mr. Eady submits that even if the court is not satisfied that the figures are so excessive as to justify intervention on this ground alone, they are nevertheless very high and accordingly the courts should look with particular care to the other matters upon which he relied as being occasions when the trial judge fell into error and to deal with these aspects in the context of a very high award. This approach would be relevant in considering whether to order a retrial under Rules of the Supreme Court Order 59, rule 11. The basis of this submission is that in such misdirections if established lies the reason for the high award. I propose to deal with the remaining grounds in the order in which Mr. Eady presented his submissions to the court.
Ground 4—Exclusion of evidence of other libels
Paragraph 13 of the statement of claim in action 1079, the sense of which was repeated in the equivalent paragraph in the statement of claim in action 1080, reads:—
"By reason of the above publication and each of them the plaintiff has been seriously injured in his reputation and feelings and has been humiliated, distressed and has suffered special damage to an extent presently unknown to the plaintiff.
PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGE
The plaintiff can no longer carry on his business as a journalist or public relations consultant".
The ensuing paragraph in each statement of claim gave particulars of facts and matters upon which the claim for exemplary damages was based....
To continue reading
Request your trial