Dr Atef Halim Wissa v Associated Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat,Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 1518 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 14 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ14D00404 |
[2014] EWHC 1518 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ14D00404
Oluwaseyi Ojo ( Solicitor Advocate from Taylor Wood) for the Claimant
Clare Kissin (instructed by Wiggin) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 7 May 2014
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 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 Tugendhat Mr Justice Tugendhat On 6 March 2014 the Defendant issued an application notice asking for an order that the claim in this libel action be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or (b) on the grounds that the statements of case disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or it is an abuse of the court's process.
The background to the action is the tragic death of a young man who was the patient of the Claimant and of two other GPs with whom he practised.
The claim form was issued on 31 January 2014. The brief details of the claim as stated on that form are:
"1. The claim is for libel.
2. The Defendant is the author of a publication on its website titled, "Patient 34 died from a brain tumour the size of a tennis ball after THREE doctors mistook symptoms for depression".
3. The publication is defamatory in (a) claiming that the diagnosis of depression was wrong (b) that the General Medical Council which is the professional regulatory body found that the care given by the Claimant was below the standard of a reasonably competent general practitioner".
The Particulars of Claim are dated 27 January 2014. It is necessary to set them out in full:
Parties
"1. The Claimant is a general practitioner at the Robert Frew Medical Centre in the Wickford area of Essex. He is a Black British Citizen of African Origin. The Claimant obtained his Primary medical qualification in Egypt in 1975 following which he obtained his postgraduate qualification in Obstetrics and gynaecology in the United Kingdom.
2. The Claimant has been a medical doctor for more than 35 years and has worked 30 years in the NHS at various levels and became a Partner at the Robert Frew Medical Practice in 1996.
3. The Defendant is a National Newspaper and Website publishing company in the UK. The Defendant is the publisher of the Daily Mail Newspaper and its online version called Mail Online.
Publication
4. Since on or about 05 July 2013, the Defendant has published the following words which referred to and were defamatory of the Claimant on its website at www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356636/Chris-Buckley-34-died-brain-tumor-THREE-doctors-mistook-symptoms-depression.html with a caption 'Patient, 34, died from a brain tumour the size of a tennis ball after THREE doctors mistook symptoms for depression'.
5. Within the publication are statements such as '…..inadequate care was provided by the GP" and "in its report, the GMC concluded that the overall standard of care was seriously below that of a reasonably competent GP'.
6. The publication and particularly the statements were read within the jurisdiction. If necessary, the Claimant will rely on the fact that the Defendant's websites are popular in the United Kingdom and in particular within the Essex regional area and on the fact that he is aware of a number of individuals including colleagues and patients who read the statements complained of, within the jurisdiction.
References
7. The statements complained of referred to the Claimant. If necessary, the Claimant will rely upon the fact that a significant but unquantifiable number of publishees of the statement complained of within the jurisdiction knew of the Claimant as the subject of the statements.
Meaning
8. The natural and ordinary meaning of the statements complained of was that:
a) The Claimant's diagnosis of depression in the patient was wrong and has no rational clinical basis thereby causing the unnecessary death of the patient and;
b) That the General Medical Council, the professional regulatory body of the Claimant and doctors found the treatment provided by the Claimant to be inadequate and the Claimant incompetent as a general practitioner thereby fuelling the unjustified criticism faced by doctors from foreign countries or ethnic background.
Conduct
a) The said statements were untrue. The Defendant did not carry out any due diligence required of a national organisation, and knew or was reckless in not caring whether its publications were true or not.
c) The Claimant will say that the Defendant knew or ought to know that the GMC did not find the Claimant's treatment and conduct to be below that expected of a reasonable competent general medical practitioner. The Claimant will say that the only reason for publishing a false statement is to sensationalise the publication and to encourage racial baiting.
d) The Claimant will rely on the racial abuse opined by readers on the website as evidence of the Defendant causing or permitting to be caused racial abuse and suggestion that the Claimant was incompetent as a result of his foreign sounding name.
e) The Claimant will say that the Defendant would not have published the wrong statements had the subject been a white GP of whom the General Medical Council had found not culpable.
f) In the circumstances, the Claimant will say that the Defendant has treated him differently because of his race, and the Defendant is put to strict proof of.
Damage
a) By reason of the publication of the said words, the Claimant has been seriously injured in his reputation and has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt and has suffered injury to his feelings.
b) Furthermore, the Claimant will rely on the following facts and matters in support of his claim for damages, including aggravated damages.
(a) Despite the fact that the Claimant wrote to the Defendant as part of the Pre-action protocol, the Defendant has refused to remove the article and asserted that the Claimant was cherry picking.
(b) The Defendant justified its actions and averred that the publication was fair and the Claimant was given a right to reply.
(c) The Claimant will say that he did not speak to the Defendant or its agents and he was never approached by the Defendant for comments.
Injunction
c) Unless the Defendant provides a satisfactory undertaking not to further publish the same or any similar words defamatory of the Claimant then he will seek appropriate injunctive relief at the trial of his action.
And the Claimant claims:
1. Damages, including aggravated damages for libel
2. Unreserved apology from the Claimant."
The grounds on which the Defendant seeks the order it does are set out in the Application Notice in 8 sub-paragraphs. These read as follows:
"1.1.1 The Claimant has failed to sufficiently identify the publication of which he complains, and has failed to provide the Defendant with a copy of the publication despite repeated requests. The URL set out in the Particulars of Claim directs to an article which does not concern the Claimant.
1.1.2 Although the Defendant did publish an article about the Claimant on or around 5 July 2013, to the best of the Defendant's knowledge it did not contain the specific words complained of in the Particulars of Claim.
1.1.3 Even if the specific words complained of in the Particulars of Claim had been published by the Defendant, they are not capable of bearing the natural and ordinary meanings pleaded by the Claimant.
1.1.4 In any event, the article published by the Defendant on or around 5 July 2013 was removed from the internet less that a month later, and more than five months before the Claimant's claim was issued.
1.1.5 The Particulars of Claims falsely state that the article has remained online, that a request was made in pre-action correspondence for it to be removed, and that the Defendant refused to comply with this request.
1.1.6 Parts of the Particulars of Claim appear to attempt to litigate matters which are wholly outside of the scope of a defamation action, including an assertion that the Claimant was treated differently because of his race.
1.1.7 The Claimant seeks to obtain remedies, such as an "unreserved apology" which cannot properly be granted by this court; and
1.1.8 Despite being represented, and all the above problems having been set out in correspondence to his solicitor, the Claimant has failed to take steps to address them of his own accord."
The main issue arising on the Application Notice arises from grounds 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.1.4.
Two related matters are to be noted. First, it is now common ground that the URL in paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim had ceased to give access to any article of which the Claimant complains at some time before September 2013. An article (or articles) which had been published with that URL had been removed following a complaint by a Dr Ogunsanya. Dr Ogunsanya is a general practitioner who was one of the three doctors referred to in the article which had been published by the Defendant. Dr Ogunsanya is both a colleague of the Claimant in his medical practice and a partner in the firm of solicitors acting for the Claimant.
Second, it is now common ground that the article accessible on the URL identified in the Particulars of Claim was published in a number of different forms. There are two versions of it in hard copy before the court.
The earlier hard copy version includes under the by-line "published 03:47 EST, 5 July 2013 updated 04:00 EST, 5 July 2013". In the form in which that is before the court it is a print out dated 1 March 2014. The print out identifies it as coming from a website bearing the name "NewsLookup. com". It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold Mballe Sube v News Group Newspapers Ltd
...is the whole of the text or, as is more commonly the case, an extract from a much larger text.” Wissa v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 1518 (QB) [29] (Tugendhat J) (cited in the notes to vol 1 of Civil Procedure 2017 at 53PD.10.) “The particular passages complained of should be clea......
-
Michael Decker v Geoffrey William Hopcraft
...words complained of and/or raises an unwinnable case. In a libel action, the Claimant must set out the statement complained of: Wissa v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 1518 (QB) [29]. The Particulars of Claim fail to do so. In any event, she submits, it is clear that this claim is in ......