Jameel and Others v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHouse of Lords
Judgment Date11 Oct 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] UKHL 44

[2006] UKHL 44


Appellate Committee

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Hoffmann

Lord Hope of Craighead

Lord Scott of Foscote

Baroness Hale of Richmond


and others

Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl


Geoffrey Robertson QC

Rupert Elliott

Guy Vassall-Adams

(Instructed by Finers Stephens Innocent LLP)


James Price QC

Jacob Dean

(Instructed by Carter-Ruck and Partners)


My Lords,


This appeal raises two questions on the law of libel. The first concerns the entitlement of a trading corporation such as the second respondent to sue and recover damages without pleading or proving special damage. The second concerns the scope and application of what has come to be called Reynolds privilege, an important form of qualified privilege.


The appellant is the publisher of The Wall Street Journal Europe, a respected, influential and unsensational newspaper ("the newspaper") carrying serious news about international business, finance and politics. It is edited, published and printed in Brussels for distribution throughout Europe and the Middle East. It shares some editorial and journalistic personnel and facilities with its elder sister in New York, The Wall Street Journal, which has a large circulation in the United States.


The respondents, claimants in the proceedings, are Saudi Arabian. The first respondent is a prominent businessman and president of the Abdul Latif Jameel Group, an international trading conglomerate based in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia comprising numerous companies and with interests in cars, shipping, property and distribution of electronic goods. The second respondent is a company incorporated in Saudi Arabia and is part of the Group. The first respondent is the general manager and president of the company, which does not itself own property or conduct any trade or business here, but which has a commercial reputation in England and Wales.


On 6 February 2002 the newspaper published the article which gave rise to these proceedings. It was headed "Saudi Officials Monitor Certain Bank Accounts" with a smaller sub-heading "Focus Is on Those With Potential Terrorist Ties". It bore the by-line of James M Dorsey, an Arabic-speaking reporter with specialist knowledge of Saudi Arabia, and acknowledged the contribution of Glenn Simpson, a staff writer in Washington. The gist of the article, succinctly stated in the first paragraph, was that the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority, the Kingdom's central bank, was, at the request of US law enforcement agencies, monitoring bank accounts associated with some of the country's most prominent businessmen in a bid to prevent them from being used, wittingly or unwittingly, for the funnelling of funds to terrorist organisations. This information was attributed to "U.S. officials and Saudis familiar with the issue". In the second paragraph a number of companies and individuals were named, among them "the Abdullatif Jamil Group of companies" who, it was stated later in the article, "couldn't be reached for comment".


The jury in due course found that the article referred to was defamatory of both respondents. They may have understood the article to mean that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the involvement of the respondents, or alternatively that there were reasonable grounds to investigate the involvement of the respondents, in the witting or unwitting funnelling of funds to terrorist organisations. For present purposes it is immaterial which defamatory meaning the jury gave the passage complained of, neither of which the newspaper sought to justify.


The article was published some five months after the catastrophic events which took place in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001. During the intervening months the US authorities had taken determined steps, with strong international support, to cut off the flow of funds to terrorist organisations, including Al-Qaida. These steps were of particular importance in relation to Saudi Arabia, since a large majority of the suspected hijackers were of Saudi origin, and it was believed that much of their financial support came from Saudi sources. Yet the position of the Saudi authorities was one of some sensitivity. The Kingdom was an ally of the United States and condemned terrorism. But among its devoutly Muslim population there were those who resented the Kingdom's association with the United States and espoused the cause of Islamic jihad. Thus there were questions about whether, and to what extent, the Kingdom was co-operating with the US authorities in cutting off funds to terrorist organisations. This was, without doubt, a matter of high international importance, a very appropriate matter for report by a serious newspaper. But it was a difficult matter to investigate and report since information was not freely available in the Kingdom and the Saudi authorities, even if co-operating closely with those of the United States, might be embarrassed if that fact were to become generally known.


The trial of the action before Eady J and a jury lasted some three working weeks and culminated in verdicts for the respondents and awards of £30,000 and £10,000 respectively. Much evidence was called on both sides, of which the House has been referred to short excerpts only. The judge rejected the newspaper's argument on the damage issue ( [2003] EWHC 2945 (QB), [2004] 2 All ER 92) and the Court of Appeal agreed with him ([2005] EWCA Civ 74, [2005] QB 904). The judge also rejected the newspaper's claim to Reynolds privilege ([2004] EWHC 37 (QB)). On this question also the Court of Appeal upheld his decision, but on a more limited ground. This calls for more detailed consideration.


The judge put a series of questions to the jury which, so far as relevant to Reynolds privilege, were directed to two matters: the sources on which Mr Dorsey, as reporter, relied; and his attempt to obtain the respondents' response to his inclusion of their names in his proposed article. Mr Dorsey testified that he had relied on information given by a prominent Saudi businessman (source A), confirmed by a banker (source B), a US diplomat (source C), a US embassy official (source D) and a senior Saudi official (source E). In answer to the judge's questions the jury found that the newspaper had proved that Mr Dorsey had received the information he claimed to have received from source A, but had not proved that Mr Dorsey had received the confirmation he claimed from sources B-E inclusive. The judge attached significance to these negative findings, since Mr Dorsey said in evidence that he would not have written the article in reliance on source A alone. In the Court of Appeal, the judge's reliance on these negative findings was criticised by the newspaper. At the outset of his direction to the jury the judge had pointed out that there was no plea of justification and that therefore, if the jury found the article defamatory of the respondents, they should assume it to be untrue. This direction, it was said, may well have infected the jury's approach to the questions concerning sources B-E. The Court of Appeal refused the newspaper leave to raise a new ground of misdirection, and thought (para 66) that the jury had "almost certainly" based their answers on the impression made by witnesses in court. But the Court of Appeal preferred to base its decision on the other ground relied on by the judge to deny privilege.


Mr Dorsey described attempts to obtain a response from the Group about his proposed article. He said he had telephoned the Group office at about 9.0 a.m. and left a recorded message. The jury found that the newspaper had not proved on the balance of probabilities that that was so. There was, it was agreed, a telephone conversation between Mr Dorsey and Mr Munajjed, an employee of the Group, on the evening of 5 February, the day before publication. During that conversation, according to Mr Munajjed, he had asked Mr Dorsey to wait until the following day for a comment by the Group. He had, he said, no authority to make a statement and the first respondent was in Japan, where the time was 3.0 a.m. Mr Dorsey denied that Mr Munajjed had asked him to wait. But the jury found that Mr Munajjed had made that request. It was on this ground, as I understand, that the Court of Appeal upheld the judge's denial of Reynolds privilege:

"82. We turn to the judge's observation that the Jameels were not given sufficient time to comment on the proposed publication. It was to this matter that the jury's questions 6 and 7 were addressed. Mr Dorsey had given evidence that he had telephoned the Jameels' offices on the morning before the publication and left a recorded message. The jury found that this did not take place. What the jury did find had taken place was that Mr Dorsey had spoken to the Jameels' representative, Mr Munajjed, on the evening before publication, that the latter had asked for the publication to be postponed so that he could contact Mr Jameel, who was in Japan on business, and that Mr Dorsey had declined this request. The judge found that there was no compelling reason why Mr Jameel could not have been afforded 24 hours to comment on the article. We can see no basis for challenging this conclusion, nor did Mr Robertson suggest that there was one."


I turn to the two issues raised in the appeal.



The issue under this head is whether a trading company which itself conducts no business but which has a trading reputation within England and Wales should be entitled to recover general damages for libel without pleading and proving that the publication complained of has caused it special damage. To resolve this question it is helpful to distinguish three sub-issues:


To continue reading

Request your trial
197 cases
3 firm's commentaries
  • Privilege, And This Time We Mean It
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 17 May 2007
    ...[2002] 1 WLR 3024; Loutchansky v Times Newspapers [2002] QB 783, English v Hastie (31 January 2002, Gray J), Jameel v Times Newspapers [2006] UKHL 44, Henry v BBC [2005] EWHC 2587; Galloway v Telegraph [2005] EMLR 7; Charman v Orioin Publishing [20006] EWHC 1756. 12 Sheikha Mouza al Misnad ......
  • The "Reynolds Public Interest Defence" And S.4 Of The UK Defamation Act 2013
    • Malaysia
    • Mondaq Malasia
    • 13 November 2020
    ...that remain applicable in Malaysia are Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127, Jameel (Mohammed) v Wall Street Journal Sprl [2006] UKHL 44 and Flood v Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11. Background This case concerns an article published by Nowy Czas, a newspaper for the Polish communit......
  • The Decline Of English Libel Trials?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 5 February 2008
    ...any particular claim. However, in October 2006 the House of Lords handed down its Judgment in Jameel v- Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2006] UKHL 44, in which it found for the defendant. This was greeted warmly by the media and some viewed it as the House of Lords' moving the "Reynol......
6 books & journal articles
  • Criminalising the Possession of Extreme Pornography: Sword or Shield?
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 75-5, October 2011
    • 1 October 2011
    ...(Home Office/NOMS/Scottish Executive: London, August 2005), para. 57. 73 See Jameel (Mohammed) v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2007] 1 AC 359 at Wingrove v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 1 and Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR103. 407 The Journal of Criminal Law this could be addressed by l......
  • Tilting at Windmills: the Defamation Act 2013
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 77-1, January 2014
    • 1 January 2014
    ...2 AC 127, 201 and 193–195, per Lord Nicholls, and 237–238, per Lord Hobhouse.38 See, for example, Jameel vWall Street Journal Europe [2006] UKHL 44 at [51], per Lord Hoffmannand [108], per Lord Hope; Flood vTimes Newspapers n 18 above at [137], per Lord Mance and at[199], per Lord Dyson.Ala......
  • Never say 'never' for the truth can hurt: defamatory but true statements in the tort of simple conspiracy.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 31 Nbr. 2, August 2007
    • 1 August 2007
    ...defamation actions by corporate persons in respect of their trading or governing reputation: Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2007] 1 AC 359. However, an exception arises where free speech may be inhibited by the defamation action and the action runs counter to the public interest:......
  • Libel: Its Purpose and Reform
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 74-6, November 2011
    • 1 November 2011
    ...Act2006, s 1.135 Latimer vAEC Ltd [1953] AC 643.136 Draft Defamation Bill 2011, cl 2.137 Jameel vWall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2006] UKHL 44 and Draft Defamation Bill 2010, cl2(1)(a). There is no such preliminary requirement in negligence, but perhaps the difference isreduced if one trea......
  • 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