Dylan Weller and Others v Associated Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Dingemans |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 2127 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ12D00678 |
| Date | 12 June 2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2014] EWHC 2127 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Mr Justice Dingemans
Case No: HQ12D00678
Mr David Sherborne (instructed by Clintons) appeared on behalf of the Claimants
Mr Antony White QC (instructed by the Editorial Legal Department of Associated Newspapers Limited) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Approved Judgment
This is a hearing dealing with orders consequential to a judgment that I handed down on 16 April 2014. I directed the parties to liaise and attempt to agree by 7 May 2014 an order consequential on the handing down of the judgment. It was also ordered that if the parties could not agree, the hearing would be adjourned and that any application to the lower court for permission to appeal would be made at the adjourned hearing. It was recorded that the parties agreed and proceeded on the basis that the adjourned hearing remained the hearing at which the decision to be appealed was made for the purposes of CPR 52.3(2)(a). I also extended time for any appellant to seek permission to appeal from the appeal court pursuant to 52.4(2)(a) to 21 days after the date of the adjourned hearing, so 21 days after today. The parties were not able to agree matters but I have had helpful submissions and I am grateful to both counsel for those submissions.
The issues before me are: (1) whether the defendant should provide an undertaking to the court and the claimants and, if not, whether I should order an injunction; (2) whether the claimants should be entitled to additional damages following the making of a Part 36 order; (3) what orders for costs should be made; and (4) whether the defendant should have permission to appeal. I will address each issue in turn.
Undertaking and injunction
So far as the undertaking and injunction is concerned, at paragraph 198 of my judgment I said this:
"In my judgment there is no evidence to suggest that the Mail Online will publish these photographs again, and they have said that they will not do so in the letter dated 4 December 2012. Mail Online also said in the letter dated 12 November 2012 that they would take ' into account' Paul Weller's stance if offered similar pictures for publication. The assurance already offered in this action in the letter dated 4 December 2012 about not publishing the photographs should be provided by way of undertaking to the Court. This will provide all parties with certainty about what and what is not permitted in circumstances where the letter dated 4 December 2012 was written at a time when liability was denied."
I then went on in paragraph 199 to deal with Mrs Weller's concern about the limitations of the words in the letter dated 12 November 2012 and her request for a wider form of injunction, which I refused. This was because of the importance of ensuring that there is clear wording in injunctions, and the principles relating to injunctions and defamation, and injunctions and privacy as discussed in Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 355 (QB).
Although Associated Newspapers Ltd provided an undertaking in AAA v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2013 (QB); [2013] EMLR 2, Mail Online has refused to provide an undertaking in this case. Mail Online says, and I accept, that no discourtesy is intended by their refusal to offer an undertaking. I understand the stance that they have taken throughout in relation to this. It is said that I should not order an injunction in lieu of the undertaking on the basis that there is no evidence to suggest that Mail Online will publish these photographs again.
Gatley on Libel and Slander, Twelfth Edition, at paragraph 9.41 sets out principles relating to the grant of injunctions in relation to defamatory material, and the principles seem to me to be applicable to actions for misuse of private information, and I do apply them. It is noted that a final injunction should be granted if the matter had been found to be injurious, and there was reason to apprehend further publication. Reference was made to Proctor v Bailey (1889) 42 Ch 390. It is common ground is the leading authority in this area, and it says:
"… an injunction is granted for prevention, and where there is no ground for apprehending the repetition of a wrongful act there is no ground for an injunction."
It is also clear from the authorities that in all cases where the court thinks it just and convenient the remedy exists.
I have in mind the relevant principles about press freedom and the restrictions on injunctions in this case, as set out in paragraph 199 of the main judgment. However, I made clear in the course of this short hearing that if no undertaking was offered, and that remains the position at the end of the hearing, I would order an injunction in the terms of the suggested undertaking set out in paragraph 198 of the judgment. I make this order for the injunction because the issue at trial was whether the publication of these photographs was lawful or not, and although there was no evidence before me that Mail Online would publish again, there were in my...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weller and Ors v Associated New
... ... is in respect of an article which was published online on 21 October 2012 by Associated Newspapers Limited, as publishers of the Mail Online. The article was headed "a family day out" and showed ... Dylan was aged 16 at the time. The two other children were the twins John Paul and Bowie who were then ... The agency posted photographs to be purchased and used by the media to, among others, Mail Online. The Photographs were captioned "Paul Weller with twins in LA". The caption said " ... ...
-
Ery v Associated Newspapers Ltd
...the Claimant's fear that such publication will take place remains justified. He refers me to the approach of Dingemans J. in Weller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 2127 (QB). ii) In any event, 24 hours' notice of any change in that intention is inadequate. iii) But, in any case, eve......
-
Mahmood v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another
...the private nature of that information in accordance with his Article 8 rights: see for example Weller v Associated Newspapers Limited [2014] EWHC 2127 QB; and secondly, to protect him from the risk of violence, a matter which it is said engages his rights under both Articles 2 and 3 of the......
-
Weller and Others v Associated Newspapers Ltd
...showed seven photographs of the father and his children with the faces of the children unpixelated; a nd (2) A further judgmentUNK ([2014] EWHC 2127 (QB)) whereby the judge had granted an injunction restraining the defendant from further publishing the photographs and awarded damages of £5,......