Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeThe Honourable Mr Justice Fulford,Mr Justice Fulford
Judgment Date16 October 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] EWHC 2322 (QB)
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Docket NumberCase No:
Date16 October 2004

[2004] EWHC 2322 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Fulford

Case No:

Between
Martha Green
Claiman
and
Associated Newspapers Limited
Defendant

Richard Spearman (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the Claimant

Catrin Evans (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for the Defendant

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.

Mr Justice Fulford The Honourable Mr Justice Fulford

Introduction

1

This application for an interim injunction came before me as Duty Judge for hearing at about 3.45pm on Saturday 16 October 2004. Although it was made without notice, in the sense that less than 3 days notification of the application was given to the defendant, Associated Newspapers were represented before me by both solicitors and counsel, and no complaint was made about the last minute nature of the hearing. Accordingly, given the urgent nature of this application and the importance of the issues involved, in my view there are good reasons for dispensing with the usual requirements as to notice.

2

Time was, and remains, of the essence. It was necessary for the parties to receive my decision at the latest shortly after 6 pm on 16 October 2004, because that was the printing deadline for the following day's Mail on Sunday, and the costs implications of a later decision prohibiting publication were very considerable. Submissions concluded shortly before 6.00 pm, and accordingly there was insufficient time to deliver an extempore judgment; in the result, I informed the parties of my decision and, in outline only, of my reasons for it. It is wholly understandable that those concerned in this litigation hope for an early resolution by the Court of Appeal on the point of law which founds my grant of leave, and in order to facilitate a timely hearing, if such is possible, it is necessary for this judgment to be available by 9.00 am on Monday 18 October 2004. Therefore, force of circumstances have meant that I have not had the time to research and prepare this judgment in the usual way, and its brevity and any concomitant lack of thoroughgoing analysis have been the inevitable consequence.

The Facts

3

The background to this application begins with an article published in the Mail on Sunday on Sunday 10 October 2004, written by Laura Collins and Sharon Churcher. The focus of the piece is revealed in the opening paragraph:

"The woman at the centre of the Blairs' £3.6 million house deal is a former business contact of convicted fraudster Peter Foster, the Mail on Sunday can reveal. Martha Greene has become one of Cherie Blair's closest friends and confidantes and was entrusted with the role of go-between when, earlier this summer, the Blairs bought the property in Connaught Square, central London."

A little later the article continues:

"Martha Greene, the 48-year-old New Yorker who runs the Villandry Restaurant and Foodstore in London's Great Portland Street, was, like Foster, introduced to Cherie by her lifestyle 'guru', Carole Caplin. The women have known each other for six years, during which time Greene has seemingly supplanted Caplin as Cherie's 'new best friend'."

4

The authors then purported to quote from Peter Foster, who claimed that he had discussions with Martha Greene about Reneulle: "a slimming firm through which (Foster) planned to market Trimmit diet pills". Thereafter the article contained the following:

"Of course, any claims made by Foster must be treated with a degree of caution. But e-mail communications between Foster and Greene, seen by this newspaper, support his account. In one, dated November 6, 2002, Greene wrote to Foster: 'As discussed, happy to assist you with the development of your Reneulle business in UK. I don't need a fancy title, as you suggested, just a consultant would suit me fine.

I would require a set fee of US$15,000, if possible paid to my account in the US …. Can we do this without the need to UK-based invoice through your overseas company? Would be helpful?"

5

On 15 October 2004, Farrer & Co wrote to the Managing Editor of the Mail on Sunday, John Wellington, setting out as regards that article, amongst other things, the following;

"The piece is littered with inaccuracies, some material less so. It is unnecessarily intrusive, for instance into her personal relationships and misuses what is clearly confidential medical information about her membership of and attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous, as well as her treatment for breast cancer. There can be no conceivable justification for putting this information into the public domain.

The "sting" of the article is, however, to be found in your attempts to link our client to Peter Foster……. Our client has met Peter Foster on no more than six occasions between October 2002 and January 2003 and not otherwise. They were predominantly social events. She did not send Foster the e-mails you attribute to her. She did not have any form of business with him."

6

Sian James, the Features Editor of the Mail on Sunday, replied by return on 15 October 2004. No response was offered to the matters raised by Farrer & Co; instead the following is set out:

"Thank you for your help with last week's article. A further email has come into our possession which raises a number of points. We would be grateful for your response by 12 noon tomorrow so that we can include it in the article we are preparing for this Sunday's Mail on Sunday.

1

In an email you sent on Friday January 31, 2003 to Peter Foster, you say:

"I would like you to give some thought to our suggestion of selling your diet aids over the internet. As you know, we are both very excited about the potential of the internet and its global reach. Ivan has the expe(r)ience with the structuring of a web site that is interactive and also how to advertise on the net."

Can you confirm that you are planning to enter into business with Peter Foster selling his slimming aids on the internet?

2

In the same mail you wrote:

"Also with the internet there are no advertising restrictions that you experience in the mainstream media. Kathryn has been using the product and lost a little weight. Sylvia told me that she wants you to send her some so she can insure Kathryn stays on it. You can't in a newspaper here run an ad with her testimonial, but on the internet you can say what you like without fear of retribution. Just think of the potential, British Prime Minister's daughter loses weight with ….. that's just one example, on the internet you don't need to comply with the strict Advertising Standards Authority that we have here."

Were Mr and Mrs Blair aware of this and how do you justify your proposal to use a member of their family to promote Mr Foster's slimming aid?

3

In the same email you wrote:

"Also, if you base the internet company in the right country you will have low taxes, if any at all. I really think this is your best course of action."

Were you trying to help Mr Foster to avoid paying UK taxes?

4

In a postscript to your email you wrote:

"Ivan and I both feel it is wrong what they have done to you and by 'they' I mean Carole's dearest friends."

We understand that the friends to which you refer are Mr and Mrs Blair. Can you confirm this?

5

You add:

"Yes, I think it was foolish for Cherie to get you involved in the flat purchase, but once she did with the full knowledge of your past, she should not have lied about it."

Can you confirm that Mrs Blair knew about Mr Foster's past before involving him in the Bristol Fats purchase?

Was Mrs Blair aware that you disapproved of her lying about Mr Foster's involvement in the flats purchase?"

7

Farrer & Co replied, again on the same day (15 October 2004). Whilst maintaining and repeating the previous representations as regards what was said to be the misuse of private information and highlighting a "wholly erroneous and defamatory link between our client and Peter Foster", the author particularly emphasises the suggested falsity of the claim that there had ever been a business relationship between Mr Foster and Miss Greene. The representations are unequivocal: "Foster's claims, as published by the Mail on Sunday are a fabrication"; thereafter, the following is set out:

"The simple answer to the questions raised in your letter is that Foster is lying to you in suggesting that our client sent him an email on 31 January 2003. If Foster has provided you with what he claims to be an email from our client to him dated 31 January 2003, then it is a forgery and your paper is about to be duped and to dupe its readership in the event that you publish his claims. Newspapers are frequently the subject of scams and there is a need for considerable caution.

Please provide us with details as to: at what time this email is said to have been sent; from what email address it is said it was sent, and to which email address it is said to have been sent, and ideally supply us with a copy of the alleged email. Without this information our client is obviously hampered in her ability to meet any case you may persist in maintaining that the email is genuine, and in demonstrating that the email is a forger by independent or other forensic evidence.

The suggestion that our client emailed Foster on 31 January is undermined by the sequence of events leading to Foster's deportation at the end of January. On Monday 27 January 2003, Foster was detained at Dublin Airport by the Irish Garda having, it seems, spent most of the period leading up 27 January in the Irish Republic. On Tuesday 28 January 2003 Foster was deported from Ireland. On 30 January 2003, Foster appears to have arrived back in Australia, landing at Sydney Airport before...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 5 November 2004
    ...Martha Greene Claimant/Appellant and Associated Newspapers Limited Defendant/Respondent [2004] EWCA Civ 1462 [2004] EWHC 2322 (QB) Lord Justice Brooke Vice-President of Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Lord Justice May Lord Justice Dyson Case No:2004/2194 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVIS......
  • Ms Ayodele Adele Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others (No 1)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 11 April 2013
    ...to rely on a substantive defence such as justification or qualified privilege, for the reasons explained by Brooke LJ in Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1462 at [57]: "…in an action for defamation a court will not impose a prior restraint on publication unless it is clear......
  • Foley v Sunday Newspapers Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 28 January 2005
    ... ... 1983 IR 88 1984 ILRM 45 BONNARD v PERRYMAN 1891 2 CH 269 HERBAGE v PRESSDRAM LTD 1984 2 ALL ER 769 1984 1 WLR 1160 GREENE v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD 2005 1 ALL ER 30 2005 3 WLR 281 TLR 10.11.2004 EUROPEAN CONVENTION HUMAN RIGHTS ART 40 SPUC v GROGAN 1989 ... ...
  • Rst v Uvw
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 11 September 2009
    ...is proposing to publish material that may be defamatory but which the defendant is alleging to be true. See, for example, Greene v. Associated Newspapers [2004] EWCA Civ 1462; [2005] QB 972.The principle is better known as the rule in Bonnard v. Perryman. In para 81 of the judgment in Gree......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT