John v Guardian News and Media Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HON MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT,Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 3066 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ08X03101 |
| Date | 12 December 2008 |
[2008] EWHC 3066 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Hon Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ08X03101
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 Tugendhat :
In the issue of The Guardian dated Saturday 5 July 2008, in its Section entitled “Weekend”, there were published the following words:
“ A PEEK AT THE DIARY OF…..
Sir Elton John
What a few days it's been. First I sang Happy Birthday to my dear, dear friend Nelson Mandela – I like to think I'm one of the few people privileged enough to call him Madiba – at a party specially organised to provide white celebrities with a chance to be photographed cuddling him, wearing that patronisingly awestruck smile they all have. It says: “I love you, you adorable, apartheid-fighting teddy bear.”
The next night I welcomed the exact same crowd to my place for my annual White Tie & Tiaras ball. Lulu, Kelly Osbourne, Agyness Deyn, Richard Desmond, Liz Hurley, Bill Clinton – I met most of them 10 minutes ago, but we have something very special and magical in common: we're all members of the entertainment industry. You can't manufacture a connection like that.
Naturally, everyone could afford just to hand over the money if they gave that much of a toss about Aids research – as could the sponsors. But we like to give guests a preposterously lavish evening, because they're the kind of people who wouldn't turn up for anything less. They fork out small fortunes for new dresses and so on, the sponsors blow hundreds of thousands on creating what convention demands we call a “magical world”, and everyone wears immensely smug “My diamonds are by Chopard” grins in the newspapers and OK. Once we've subtracted all these costs, the leftovers go to my foundation. I call this care-o-nomics. As seen by Marina Hyde”
Sir Elton John (“the Claimant”) sues for libel. The Defendant issued an application notice dated 5 November, which is now before me, by which it seeks rulings on the meanings attributed to the words complained of by the Claimant in his Particulars of Claim paras 7 and 8, pursuant to CPR Part 53 Practice Direction para 4.1. The primary ruling that the Defendant seeks is that the words complained of are not capable of bearing those meanings. The Defendant also asks for a ruling that the words complained of are only capable of being regarded as comment. By that notice the Defendant also applies for orders that the claim be struck out pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2), or for summary judgment under CPR Part 24, alternatively that para 8 of the Reply (the plea of malice) be struck out under CPR Part 3.4(2). There is no application by the Claimant before me.
The parties to this action are too well known to need any introduction.
The Claimant is, amongst other things, the founder and Chairman of the Elton John Aids Foundation (“EJAF”). This is a registered charity with the objectives of providing funding for educational programmes targeted at preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, the elimination of prejudice and discrimination against those affected by HIV/AIDS and assisting people living with or at risk from HIV/AIDS. Since 1999 the Claimant and his partner (who is not a claimant) have hosted at their home an annual event known as the White Tie & Tiara Ball (“the Ball”) which is organised for the benefit of EJAF.
The Ball took place on the tenth occasion on Thursday 26 June 2008. Arrangements were made with the publishers of OK! magazine for photographs of those attending the Ball to be published, as they were in its issue dated 8 July. That issue was available for sale on 1 July. It is pleaded in the Particulars of Claim in support of a claim for aggravated damages. Ms Hyde (“the journalist”) states that she had already filed the words complained of before that date. However she was aware of the event and the scale of the sums raised from previous years, and had read numerous other articles about the Ball before she wrote the words complained of.
Pages 70 to 89 of that issue of OK! contain images of those attending the Ball under the heading “OK! INVITES YOU TO JOIN US AT THE SUMMER'S GLITZIEST PARTY – WHITE TIE AND TIARA BALL – THE STARS DAZZLE IN CHOPARD AS THEY JOIN SIR ELTON JOHN AND DAVID FURNISH FOR THEIR ANNUAL EXTRAVAGANZA”. Many of the pages include images of the Claimant together with others, of whom some, such as President Clinton, are very famous. The text includes the information (which is not in dispute) that all costs are underwritten by sponsorship from companies, which means that all revenues from the ticket sales, auction lots and pledges goes directly to the charity's projects.
The Ball has raised many millions of pounds in previous years and some £10 million in 2008, bringing the total raised to more than £38 million, according to information provided by the Claimant and not disputed before me.
On 25 June, a celebration of the 90 th birthday of Nelson Mandela was held at which the Claimant sang Happy Birthday.
A Claim Form and Particulars of Claim were served, dated 7 August. This followed an exchange of correspondence. None of the meanings complained of in the letter dated 7 July 2008 (in which the Claimant's complaint was first made) is pleaded in the Particulars of Claim, and the meanings pleaded in the Particulars of Claim were not suggested in that letter. The meanings pleaded on behalf of the Claimant are as follows:
“7. In their natural and ordinary meaning the words complained of meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant's commitment to EJAF and its aims and objectives is so insincere that he
1) hosts the White Tie & Tiara Ball knowing that once the costs of the Ball have been covered only the small proportion of the money raised which is left over is available for EJAF to distribute to good causes and;
2) uses the White Tie & Tiara Ball as an occasion for meeting celebrities and/or self promotion rather than for raising money for EJAF and the good causes it supports.
8. By way of innuendo the words complained of meant and were understood to mean that the commitment of the Claimant to the stated aims and objectives of EJAF is so insincere that he dishonestly or falsely claims that all the money raised by the White Tie & Tiara Ball goes to EJAF whereas the true position is that once the costs of the Ball have been covered only the small proportion of the money raised by the Ball which is left over is available for EJAF to distribute to good causes.
PARTICULARS OF INNUENDO
1) The programme for the 10 th White Tie & Tiara Ball carried an introduction from the Claimant which stated that “…every penny raised goes to [EJAF].”
2) In the premises, the said facts and matters would have been known to a substantial but unquantifiable number of readers of the words complained of and these readers would have understood the same to bear the meaning set out at paragraph 8 above.”
The plea of aggravated damages includes an allegation that the journalist knew that the words complained of were false in the meanings set out in paras 7 and 8 of the Particulars of Claim. The claim for aggravated damages covers seven of the eleven pages of the pleading.
The Defence refers to the lavish entertainment and the coverage by OK! There are denials that the words complained of bore or were capable of bearing the meanings pleaded in the Particulars of Claim paras 7 and 8. No other defence is raised in relation to those meanings. At para 11 there is pleaded a meaning in respect of which the Defendant raises a defence of fair comment. The facts identified as forming the basis of the comment are the facts relating to the Claimant, to EJAF and to the Ball set out above. The meaning pleaded is as follows:
“11. If and insofar as the words complained of bore the meaning that the Claimant's conduct in arranging a lavish celebrity ball was distasteful and wasteful, because all of the money spent on the ball should have been given to EJAF, they were fair comment on a matter of public interest. The matter of public interest was the Claimant's method of fundraising for his charity.”
There is a Reply. It is admitted that the Claimant's fund-raising for EJAF is a matter of public interest, but it is denied that the words complained of were comment. There is a plea of malice. The particulars given are as follows:
1) “Ms Hyde knew it to be false and/or did not believe it to be true that the sum of money received by EJAF was reduced by the costs of the ball.
2) The Claimant will rely upon the admissions in paragraphs 14.4 and 14.6 that at all material times Ms Hyde believed that the costs of the ball were met by the sponsors and that all the money raised through ticket sales, auction lots and pledges went (without any deductions) to EJAF.
3) Ms Hyde wrote (in the words complained of) that the ball cost “hundreds of thousands” of pounds. Ms Hyde read press coverage of the ball before she wrote the words complained of which reported variously that the ball had raised £10,000,000 or £6,600,000 and/or that 620 tickets for the ball had been sold for £3,000 each (i.e. £1,860,000) and/or that the 2007 ball had raised £6,100,000
4) Ms Hyde did not believe that the money received by EJAF was what was “left over” after the costs of the ball had been paid. She knew that on any view the amount raided for EJAF was many times the amount spent on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dr Christopher Sydney Daniels v British Broadcasting Corporation
...which “can be a very onerous burden and one which interferes with the right to freedom of expression” as Tugendhat J said in John v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2008] EWHC 3066 (QB) at [16]; and see also his analysis in Thornton at [50] -[88] with which I respectfully agree. 48 Criticisms of ......
-
James White v Express Newspapers
...too high is an interference with the right of the Defendant to freedom of expression for reasons explained in the judgment I gave in John v. Guardian [2008] EWHC 3066 (QB) at paras 16 to 17. 5 Ms Michalos further submitted that an order of costs in the case would discourage the Defendant fr......
-
Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd
...with freedom of expression …'" 62 I too have made similar rulings on a number of occasions, including in the case of Elton John v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2008] EWHC 3066 (QB) cited by Mr Price to Sharp J and referred to by her in Ecclestone at para [10] of her judgment. These and other r......
-
Nicholas Brown v Tom Bower and Another
...with the nature of publication in question; and any expectations created by that familiarity: see John v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 3066 (QB), [22]–[23], [32]. I would add, however, that this is an exercise which needs to be undertaken with care. The court can take judicial notice ......