Dee v Telegraph Media Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE EADY,Mr Justice Eady,Mrs Justice Sharp |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 2546 (QB),[2010] EWHC 924 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ09X01648 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 28 April 2010 |
[2009] EWHC 2546 (QB)
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Case No: HQ09X01648
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Jacob Dean (instructed By Addleshaw Goddard) For The Claimant
David Price, Solicitor Advocate (instructed By David Price Solicitors & Advocates) For The Defendant
Hearing date: 8 October 2009
Approved Judgment
Mr Justice Eady
There is an application now before the court on the part of the Defendant, Telegraph Media Group Ltd, for further information from the Claimant, Mr Robert Dee. It is necessary to consider, first, the background which gives rise to the claim.
The Claimant is suing over an article published on the front page of the Daily Telegraph on 23 April 2008 under the heading “World's worst tennis pro wins at last”. It consists of the following three paragraphs:
“A BRITON ranked as the worst professional tennis player in the world after 54 defeats in a row has won his first match.
Robert Dee, 21, of Bexley, Kent, did not win a single match during his first three years on the circuit, touring at an estimated cost of £200,000.
But his dismal run ended at the Reus tournament near Barcelona as he beat an unranked 17-year-old, Arzhang Derakshani, 6–4, 6–3. Dee, below, lost in the second round.”
Immediately below this article is published a photograph of the Claimant, apparently playing tennis, and what would appear to be an invitation to turn to the “Full story: S20”. This is drawing attention to an article on page 20 of the Sport supplement of the same issue.
The meaning attributed on the Claimant's behalf in the particulars of claim to the words complained of is that “… until his win at the Reus tournament near Barcelona, the Claimant had lost 54 consecutive professional tennis matches during his three years on the professional tennis circuit, and had therefore proved himself to be the worst professional tennis player in the world”.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Defendant denies that the words complained of are defamatory and also disputes the pleaded meaning. It is an important part of the Defendant's case that the short front page article should be read together with the longer article appearing in the Sport supplement (the “full story”) as part of its context. This is headed “A British tennis sensation – the world's worst”. Like the briefer article on the front page, it is attributed to the authorship of Mark Hodgkinson. There is also a sub-heading “British globetrotter Dee ends his losing streak at the 55 th time of asking”. In order to make sense of the Defendant's case on meaning, it is appropriate to set out the terms of this article also:
“IN the history of British tennis failures, and it's been a long and rich history, no one had previously come close to the serial defeats that have flowed from the racket of Robert Dee, a 21-year-old from Bexley, Kent. Perhaps Dee has earned the right to be bracketed with such global sporting icons as ski-jumping's Eddie the Eagle or swimming's Eric the Eel.
Dee said last night he had found his new fame 'a bit odd', but raise a glass of Pimm's to him, as when it comes to losing, he's absolutely world class.
Dee equalled the world record for the longest run of consecutive defeats, after his first three years on the international professional circuit saw him lose 54 matches in a row, and all of them in straight sets. That's 108 lost sets in succession.
But he even failed in his efforts to make the record his own, after he last week won a first-round match in qualifying at a lowly Futures tournament in Spain. He soon returned to form, losing in the next round … and in straight sets.
Dee sounded baffled yesterday as he reacted to claims that he might just be the world's worst professional tennis player. 'I honestly didn't know about the record so all the attention is a bit odd,' he said. 'Obviously it was great to get my first win but I can't believe that people don't have anything better to write about. I'm just going to keep on playing and improving and working hard with my coaches. Hopefully that will mean more wins at these sorts of tournaments'.
His father, Alan, said that describing him as a total no-hoper 'was laughable and incorrect', adding: 'The Lawn Tennis Association have given him a rating of 4.2 and that is very impressive.'
Paul Henderson, his former head teacher at Eltham College, said: 'Rob was never the school champion but he was very methodical about his tennis. We often wondered if we would hear of him again.'
Dee has lost around the planet, in Iran, Senegal, Colombia, Botswana, Venezuela, Rwanda, Kenya, Sudan, Mexico, the United States, Norway, Holland and Spain. Almost all of his tennis has been played at Futures tournaments, which are the lowest rung of the proper professional circuit. Dee's travel expenses must run to hundreds of thousands of pounds. And yet he has won a fraction of that back in prize-money.
Why didn't he just give up, you might ask. But you also have to admire Dee's perseverance as his losing record went on and on and expensively on. A spokeswoman for the LTA confirmed yesterday that Dee had not received any official funding, and instead received money from his parents, with his father a managing director of a shipping firm.
Dee's lack of success means that he doesn't have a proper world ranking, and until this week the LTA knew next to nothing about him. Even the Kent county office were largely in the dark, regarding Dee as something of a jet-setting man of mystery, whose long-awaited win came in Spain last week when he beat American Arzhang Derakshani 6–4, 6–3. But he was brought down to earth when he immediately lost 6–3, 6–1 to Poland's Artur Romanowski.
Dee is now living and training in La Manga, Spain, and in recent months has been playing tournaments on Spain's national tour. Apparently, he's even threatening to break into the top 500 of players based there. Roger Federer, beware.”
There is also a box alongside the article drawing attention to other “National failings”, such as Eddie “the Eagle” Edwards, the England cricket team of 2006–2007, Devon Loch (the Queen Mother's horse which slipped and collapsed yards from the winning line in the 1956 Grand National) and England's Euro 2008 squad.
The claim is confined to defamation and no reliance is placed on the tort of injurious falsehood. The object of any libel action is to restore reputation. It is difficult to see what the Claimant hopes to gain from this litigation. It may be true that the newspaper was “having a laugh” at his expense, but it is not immediately apparent how the claim is likely to restore or enhance his reputation. Nonetheless, the solicitors have lodged a costs estimate of over £500,000 (not including success fee or ATE premium). To an outside observer, it may seem difficult to understand how the case could give rise to such expenditure. Nevertheless, against that background, it is especially important to see to what extent the issues can be effectively narrowed and both sides' cards placed on the table as soon as possible.
The Defendant seeks to justify the words complained of (i.e. those published on the front page) on the basis that the Claimant “… lost 54 consecutive matches in straight sets in tournaments on the international professional circuit” and/or that he “… lost 54 consecutive matches in straight sets in tournaments that contribute to a player's world ranking”. They seek also to justify the conclusion that “… in consequence he merited or deserved being ranked or described as the world's worst professional tennis player”.
The Defendant does not deny that the allegations were literally untrue, in the sense that the Claimant did not lose 54 consecutive professional matches, but the defence seeks to put to one side the professional matches which the Claimant won during the period in question – for the reason that they were played in Spanish tournaments which had no relevance to a world ranking under the auspices of the Association of Tennis Professionals (the ATP). It will be noted that the article on the front page actually refers, in the first line, to the Claimant's being “ranked” as the worst professional player. It is thus submitted that tennis matches having nothing to do with a world ranking would be irrelevant to the central thrust of the article (whether one takes into account the “full story” or not).
The original plea of justification relied on definitions and rules contained in the ATP Rulebook. Attention is drawn to the definition of the phrase “international professional circuit”, which appears in the Lucas-Box meaning, although not on the front page of the newspaper, to be found in ATP rule 1.01. On the other hand, this was pleaded by reference to the 2009 rules, which were not in effect at the time the article was published or during the period when any of the relevant matches were being played. At all events, the defence purports to define “the international professional circuit” as consisting of “ATP World Tour tournaments, Grand Slams, Davis Cup, ATP Challenger Tour tournaments and Futures tournaments”. These are the five categories of events in official men's professional tennis identified in rule 1.01 of the 2009 Rulebook.
The Claimant made the point in the reply that the current ATP Rules had no application during the relevant period. Although, for the Defendant, Mr Price argues that this makes no difference, there is now a somewhat reformulated case in a document sent on the Defendant's behalf on 17 July of this year. It was,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ronald Terance Stocker v Nicola Stocker
...first party to prepare his case) was general enough to embrace his client's request, and relied in support of his submission on Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2009] EWHC 2546 (QB) [12]–[17], where Eady J referred to the need to place cards on the table and to avoid technical objections wh......
-
Tereza Burki v Seventy Thirty Ltd
...meaning as one of a series of connected articles amounting to a single publication, in the sense considered by Sharp J in Dee v Telegraph Group plc [2010] EWHC 924 (QB). As I understand it, the review would only have appeared in response to a Google search for 70/30, so the ordinary reasona......
-
Dr Christopher Sydney Daniels v British Broadcasting Corporation
...professional or trading reputation of the claimant, they are not defamatory.” (emphasis added) 40 He also refers to what I said in Dee v Telegraph Media [2010] EWHC 924; [2010] EMLR 20 at [48] to [49] and what was said by Lord Keith at [16] to [17] in Derbyshire County Council v Times News......
-
Alison Morgan v Times Newspapers Ltd
...case. For this purpose he relies in particular on Gatley and in particular the decisions in Drummond-Jackson, Thornton and Dee v. Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EMLR 20 (Sharp J, as she then 36 As to Gatley, the requirement of an habitual or chronic failing was demonstrated by paragraph ......