Irfan Qadir v Associated Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT,Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 05 October 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 2606 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ111D02770 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 05 October 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 2606 (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: HQ111D02770
William Bennett (instructed by Hamlins LLP) for the Claimant
Mark Warby QC and Adam Speker (instructed by Taylor Wessing LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 26 and 27 July 2012
Approved Judgment
This libel action is brought in respect of two articles published by the Defendant ("ANL") in the Mail on Sunday. The first was published on 8 May 2011 ("Bank of Scotland Director 'drove us out with dogs'"). The second was published on 19 June 2011 ("Top banker named in mortgage fraud case"). The Claimant is the director or banker referred to in each of those articles. The defences in respect of the first article include qualified privilege (both under the Defamation Act 1996 s.15 and at common law), and justification (truth). The defences in respect of the second article include absolute and qualified privilege under the Defamation Act 1996 ss.14 and 15 and justification (truth), but that defence is only in relation to the repetition in the second article of the allegations in the first article. There are pleas of malice in each case.
On 2 April 2012 the Master directed a trial of a preliminary issue, namely all issues of privilege and malice. This is the judgment on those issues, and only on those issues. Depending on the outcome of this hearing, the court may or may not have to consider the defences of truth. At this hearing I have heard no evidence as to the truth or falsity of the two articles, and nothing in this judgment should be taken as a finding of fact by me on whether any of the allegations which Mr Qadir complains of is true or false. His case is that the defamatory allegations are untrue.
The publications complained of were in each case in two forms: both in the print editions of the Mail on Sunday and on the Mail Online website. So far as the second article is concerned, the reasons why both absolute and qualified privilege are pleaded is that absolute privilege is available only in respect of reports published contemporaneously with the legal proceedings in question. The online publication continued for some months. In relation to the both articles there are some differences in the text published in print and online. Further, not all the words complained of come within the various statutory privileges ANL relies on, and it is for that reason that it relies on common law privilege in addition to statutory privilege. For some purposes the print and online publications can be considered in this judgment together, but for others they must be considered separately.
I shall consider in respect of each article whether there is available to ANL a statutory defence of qualified privilege, or absolute privilege, or a common law privilege. If ANL cannot succeed at that point in its case, then whether or not Mr Qadir can prove malice would not need to be determined. But in so far as I need to consider Mr Qadir's case in malice, I will do it after considering the defences of qualified and absolute privilege.
THE FIRST ARTICLE
The words complained of
The words complained of in the first article are as follows (the numbers and underling are added, the underlining to mark the passages which Mr Qadir submits are extraneous information not derived from the Particulars of Claim in the action which the article describes ("the Penthouse action")):
" Bailed-out bank boss accused of terror tactics by club trio suing for £3.5m [ these words were only used in the print version]
Bank of Scotland director 'drove us out with dogs'
[1] It is one of London's hottest nightspots. The Penthouse, on the top floors of No1 Leicester Square, enjoys stunning views of the capital.
[ Caption beneath a photograph of the Claimant:] Demands: Irfan Qadir took control of the Penthouse club in Leicester Square
[2] But the club's former owners now make the extraordinary claim that they were driven out in fear of their lives by an executive of one of Britain's bailed-out banks.
[3] The three owners say that Irfan Qadir, an award winning banker with Bank of Scotland, used a group of ten men with large dogs to frighten them into signing over their shares in the club and restaurant.
[4] Businessmen Mark Young, Paul Carew and Neville Mody have launched a legal battle for damages of £3.5m against Qadir and Bank of Scotland.
[5] In the lengthy writ the three say they feared not only for their own lives but also those of their families.
[6] They accuse Qadir of making false statements to win a court injunction and then trying to bankrupt their business by using his influence at the bank to block rescue loans.
[7] Qadir was the senior business director and lending manager at Bank of Scotland's City of London Corporate Centre at the time of their allegations.
[8] He is currently working for Bank of Ireland and is on a list of the 50 most powerful Muslims in the UK, just above former Dragons' Den star James Caan.
[9] In 2003 Qadir won a Financial Excellence Award shortly after becoming one of the youngest directors of Bank of Scotland.
[10] The corporate division – headed by the now notorious Peter Cummings – was one of the engines of the credit boom, providing business borrowers with billions in risky loans.
[11] It left the group lumbered with massive bad debts and Cummings, once hailed as a banking genius, left in disgrace and has since disappeared from public view.
[12] According to the writ, Qadir's activities went beyond incompetence. After the confrontation with the men and dogs, which took place in September 2005 according to the writ, Carew resigned, but licence holder Young and chief contact Mody were told they had to stay as directors despite signing over the shares.
[13] They were told to appear normal to the outside world and were warned that 'if they rocked the boat the consequences for them would be dire', the writ claims.
[14] The three had previously run the Elysium nightclub at the Cafe Royal in central London and were introduced to Qadir in 2002 by a solicitor and independent financial adviser.
[15] Qadir allegedly said he was able to lend money to businesses such as theirs without security and the three said they would contact him if they ever needed money.
[16] Two years later in 2004 they set up Aquarius Entertainments to buy a 30-year lease on The Penthouse club and restaurant on three floors in Leicester Square.
[17] At the time the credit boom was in full swing and they claim that Qadir offered them a £500,000 loan and said he had £100m to lend to new ventures.
[18] The Penthouse was valued at £2.5m and had a licence until 1am, but shortly after it opened in November 2004 that was extended to 3am, greatly increasing its value.
[19] Qadir offered to introduce investor Muhammad Aslam into the business and said he was willing to pay £175,000 for a 10% stake in Aquarius.
[20] He advised them to accept the offer, which they did, the writ says.
[21] The three said they handed him 225 shares in the name of the investor, Mr Aslam, but claimed that Qadir later said he had acquired the shares himself. The remaining shares were owned by the three and their friends.
[22] A month after opening, the three realised there would be a £300,000 shortage because of a delay in opening and stamp duty.
[23] Although Qadir promised to increase the loan, he told his assistant to delay it in an attempt to put the club into a precarious financial position, allowing Qadir and his associates to win control, the writ alleges.
[24] In March 2005, it is alleged, Qadir transferred the 225 shares in Aquarius into a non-existent company, Doyle Investments Ltd.
[25] Within months, the men had become desperate for money to pay the rent, but the loan they expected was not forthcoming.
[26] By this time Qadir had left Bank of Scotland and was head of business lending in London for Bank of Ireland.
[27] Qadir now told them he had arranged a short-term loan for £100,000 with Bank of Ireland, it is claimed. Later, saying that he needed security for the loan, he persuaded Young, Carew and Mody to sign various documents.
[28] Some of these turned out to be blank stock transfer forms, the writ says.
[29] It claims Qadir then completed the blank stock transfer forms, making them out to himself. This gave him control of the club on paper and Qadir argued that he was able to call an extraordinary general meeting and sack the three businessmen from their posts.
[30] It was at this point on September 2, 2005, that Qadir allegedly arrived at the club with ten men and large dogs. One man claimed that Doyle Investments owned the club with 60% of the shares, while another demanded the three resign, the writ says.
[31] Qadir, it is alleged, lied to win a High Court injunction requiring the men to leave the club and formally hand over control.
[32] Mr Justice Patten granted the injunction on the basis of Qadir's witness statement on September 9, 2005, according to the writ.
[33] The three say that because of Qadir's actions they lost the chance of selling the Penthouse to a company called Credon Ltd for £3.5m, which withdrew its offer.
[34] They also missed out on selling it to the Penthouse Group of America, which ended negotiations, and so lost the chance of turning the Penthouse into a successful business.
[35] When Aquarius Entertainments was dissolved they were each left with large liabilities because of the guarantees they had given.
[36] A spokesman for Bank of Scotland said: 'We can confirm that Bank of Scotland has been named as one of the defendants in a claim issued by LT Law. As the matter is currently the subject of legal proceedings, we are unable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tariq Alsaifi v Benjamin Amunwa
...of which is not for the public benefit." There are circumstances in which this can be important qualification. See, eg, Qadir v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2606 (QB) [2013] EMLR 15. But Mr Alsaifi places no reliance on that qualification, and I am satisfied that he has no basis fo......
-
Dr Ashti Hawrami v Journalism Development Network Inc.
...as to whether adoption is a useful conceptual tool in this area of the law.” 45 I was next taken to Qadir v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2606 which related to what was contended to be fair and accurate of documents kept on a public court register as part of legal proceedings, but w......
-
Tariq Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc and Board of Directors and Another
...of which is not for the public benefit." There are circumstances in which this can be important qualification. See, eg, Qadir v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2606 (QB) [2013] EMLR 15. But, subject to paragraphs [80] ff below, Mr Alsaifi places no reliance on that qualification, and ......
-
Bruno Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd
...publishers are well aware, this requires balanced reporting. The point was made by Tugendhat J in Qadir v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2606 (QB), [2013] EMLR 15 where reporting of the contents of a claim form was in issue. At [100–101] the Judge said this: "… as a general rule (th......
-
Privilege and Malice – Qadir v Associated Newspapers Limited
...preliminary ruling in the on-going libel case of Qadir v Associated Newspapers Limited [2012] EWHC 2606 (QB), the Court has struck out the Mail on Sunday’s defences of privilege on the basis that the articles in question were not a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings. Unusually, t......