Matthew Cooper and Another v Mark Turrell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT,Mr Justice Tugendhat: |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 3269 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ10X03031HQ10X03032HQ10X03033 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 12 December 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 3269 (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: HQ10X03031HQ10X03032HQ10X03033
Jonathan Barnes (instructed by Marriott Harrison) for the Claimant
The Defendant did not attend and was not represented
Hearing dates: 24 November 2011
Mr Turrell is the defendant to each of these three related actions. He was a founder of the Second Claimant ("the Company"). Until 4 June 2010 he was a director and the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. He is, or was until recently, a major shareholder. The Company is a public company listed on the Alternative Investment Market ("AIM") in London. These proceedings have been brought in respect of the conduct of Mr Turrell in response to the termination of his position with the Company on 4 June 2010, including his conduct during meetings held on that date.
Mr Cooper is the Executive Chairman and a director of the Company. The three actions were commenced by three claim forms each issued on 9 August 2010. The first action ("number 3031") is a claim by Mr Cooper against Mr Turrell for relief arising out of the misuse of private information and/or breach of confidence, including an injunction, delivery up and damages. The information concerning Mr Cooper is private information relating to his health. It is set out in the Confidential Schedule to the Particulars of Claim. It was obtained by Mr Turrell by means of the unauthorised and secret audio recording made by him of a conversation between Mr Cooper and Mr Shawn Taylor. Mr Taylor is also a director of the Company.
In the first action ("number 3031") Mr Cooper sues for misuse of private information. At about 10.30am on 4 June 2010 Mr Cooper and Mr Taylor had informed Mr Turrell that his employment with the Company was terminated with immediate effect. That was the first meeting that morning. During the afternoon of 4 June 2010 a second meeting took place between Mr Cooper and Mr Taylor on the one hand and Mr Turrell on the other. The meeting took place in the presence of solicitors advising the Company, Mr Charles and Mr Cordran. At a time when Mr Turrell was absent from the room during one or the other of these meetings, and at a time when the solicitors were also absent, Mr Cooper communicated to Mr Taylor the private information concerning himself which is set out in the Confidential Schedule. Mr Turrell made the secret audio recording of conversations which included this private conversation between Mr Cooper and Mr Taylor.
In the third action ("number 3033") the Company sues Mr Turrell for breach of confidence, claiming an injunction, delivery up and damages. The claim arises from the same audio recording, insofar as it was made of the conversation between the Directors of the Company while they were discussing the affairs of the Company and taking advice from the Company's solicitors.
In the second action ("number 3032") Mr Cooper and the Company are both claimants. They claim damages for libels published on ten occasions. The first was on 10 June 2010 in the form of a message recorded by Mr Turrell on the voicemail of the Company's solicitor (there is an alternative claim in slander). The second to eighth publications complained of are a series of e-mails sent by Mr Turrell between 11 June and 9 July. The ninth and tenth words complained of are internet postings made by Mr Turrell on 28 July on the website www.advfn. com.
The meanings attributed by Mr Cooper and the Company to the voicemail recorded on 10 June are:
"1. The First Claimant is medically unfit to perform, and therefore incapable of fulfilling his functions and duties as a Company Director, including as a director of the Second Claimant.
2. The First Claimant was similarly unfit and incapable when he was recruited by the Second Claimant as a director, but although he was under a duty to disclose this to the Second Claimant, including to the Defendant, he failed to do so and so knowingly deceived both the Second Claimant and the Defendant.
3. Both the First and Second Claimants have knowingly and therefore dishonestly breached legal and regulatory duties that they are under to disclose the First Claimant's (supposed) medical condition to the AIM market and its regulator".
Similar meanings are attributed to the other words complained of. In addition, there are other defamatory meanings attributed by the Claimants to the publications complained of. In respect of the third publication complained of, an email with letter attachment dated 7 July 2010, one of the meanings attributed to it by the Claimants is:
"The Second Claimant, at the direction of the First Claimant…2. terminated the Defendant's employment dishonestly in circumstances of duress, misrepresentation and blackmail warranting a police criminal investigation".
Another meaning attributed by the Claimants to the words complained of, in particular to the seventh publication by e-mail on 9 July 2010, includes:
"2. The First Claimant has in the context of the Defendant's departure from the Second Claimant behaved dishonestly, and may well have passed insider trading information illegally to Octopus Investments Limited ("Octopus") (another company of which Mr Cooper is a director)".
In this libel action the Claimants also allege dishonesty on the part of Mr Turrell. They allege it in the Particulars of Claim para 28, in support of a claim in aggravated damages, and again in the Reply in a plea of malice in response to various defences of qualified privilege. They allege that Mr Turrell has made many deliberate false statements including the allegation of blackmail, and that he did so pursuant to an illegitimate campaign to disable the Company in the operation of its business by forcing the removal of its Board of Directors, including the removal of Mr Cooper as Executive Chairman.
Following a number of other orders made in these actions, on 21 June 2011 Sharp J made an order in each of the three actions that judgment be entered for the Claimants for damages to be assessed, and for other remedies including costs to be considered. That order was made in default of compliance with earlier orders which Sharp J had made.
24 October 2011 was the dated fixed for the hearing of the claims for the damages to be assessed and for other remedies to be considered. The Claimants consented to an adjournment of that hearing in order to allow Mr Turrell to be present. However, he applied again for another adjournment and that application was dismissed by Sharp J on 17 November 2011.
Accordingly this is the hearing ordered to be held to assess damages and consider other relief. And it proceeds in Mr Turrell's absence.
Mr Turrell has submitted a document headed "Letter to the Court—23 November 2011". In it he states that he will not be present at this hearing, giving as a reason that he is unable to travel to the UK due to lack of a valid passport which he says is being renewed. In that letter he asks the court to strike out all the claims, although this is too late given that Sharp J has already entered judgment against him. I treated that letter as an application for a further adjournment, which I refused, because there was no evidence submitted by Mr Turrell to support his statement that he was unable to travel to the UK.
On 20 October 2010 Mr Turrell had served Defences of his own drafting in each action. They also included counterclaims. These were struck out by an order dated 1 December 2010.
On 14 January 2011 Mr Turrell then served fresh defences in each action settled on this occasion by counsel. He admits that he made the audio recording of the conversations at a time when he was not in the room.
The transcript of the voicemail left on 10 June 2010 is no more than about six lines. The e-mail of 11 June 2010 was addressed to Mr Griffiths of Arbuthnot Securities Limited, the Company's AIM market nominated advisor ("NOMAD") and to Mr Marshall, a former chairman of the Company.
The e-mail of 7 July 2010 was also addressed to Mr Griffiths. It was copied to Mr Taylor, Mr Wainwright, another director, and Mr Moorland, also a director of the Company, and to the two solicitors Mr Charles and Mr Cordran.
The e-mail of 8 July 2010 was addressed to AIM Regulation it reads:
"I would like to bring to the attention serious issues at [the Company]. This might sound unusual as I am 48% shareholder and formerly the CEO and Executive Director. However, the circumstances are highly unusual and there is written evidence of huge lapses in corporate governance on the part of the current Directors, with minimal to "negligent" (my word) oversight and guidance from the company's NOMAD. The company is continuing to misinform the market on price-sensitive information for example
This is an urgent and serious issue. I am working with the police on the criminal aspects of the situation.
I have further information that supports the directors' breach of duty on multiple ongoing occasions. I can be reached at this e-mail or my mobile is…
This is, I repeat, a highly unusual situation, one where the various rules and safeguards have all failed. I am turning to the AIM team to help protect all investors in this company and the reputation of the market".
The letter attached to the e-mails of 7 and 8 July included the following:
"More importantly, I have also filed a Police Report due to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacqueline Thompson (Claimant and Part 20 Defendant) v Mark James (First Defendant and Part 20 Claimant) Carmarthenshire County Council (Second Defendant)
...an obsession for which there is no obvious explanation. These campaigns are commonly conducted on the internet. Other such cases include Cooper v Turrell [2011] EWHC 3269 (QB) and ZAM v CFW [2011] EWHC 476 (QB) (the targets were prominent businessmen, and the motive apparently revenge); The......
-
Representative Claimants v Mgn Ltd
...The exception was Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EMLR 20, where £60,000 was awarded. In addition, in Cooper v Tyrrell [2011] EWHC 3269 (QB), Tugendhat J awarded £30,000 for damages for misuse of private information in addition to damages of £50,000 for libel. He held that, had t......
-
Richard v British Broadcasting Corporation
...implication sought by Mr Millar simply cannot be made. 340 Next Mr Millar relied on an implication which he said was to be drawn from Cooper v Turrell [2011] EWHC 3269 (QB). In that action an individual sued another individual for libel and misuse of private information (medical informatio......
-
Shobna Gulati and Others v MGN Ltd
...not completely support Mr Sherborne. 151 Mr Sherborne then pointed to Cray v Hancock [2005] All ER D 66 (QB) and Cooper v Turrell [2011] EWHC 3269 (QB) as being examples of cases where separate sums were awarded for separate legal wrongs. The second of those does indeed make Mr Sherborne's......
-
Table of Cases
...19–21 Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor, [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) .................................. 19, 248–49 Cooper & Anor v Turrell, [2011] EWHC 3269 (QB) ............................................................ 30, 33 Craven v Chmura, 2016 ONSC 2406 .............................................
-
Campaigns of Vilification and Defamation
...there is no obvious explanation. These campaigns are commonly conducted on the internet. Other such cases include Cooper v Turrell [2011] EWHC 3269 (QB) and ZAM v CFW [2011] EWHC 476 (QB) (the targets were prominent businessmen, and the motive apparently revenge); The Law Society v Kordowsk......