Matthias Rath v (1) Guardian News and Media Ltd (2) Ben Goldacre
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT,Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 398 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQO7X02333 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 05 March 2008 |
[2008] EWHC 398 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQO7X02333
Mr Matthew Nicklin (instructed by Eversheds) for the Claimant
Mr Andrew Caldecott QC and Ian Helme (instructed by Olswangs) for the Defendants
Hearing date: Friday 15 th February 2008
Approved Judgment
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
These are libel proceedings arising from the publication by the Defendants of three articles in a column of The Guardian newspaper entitled Bad Science which appeared in both the print and online versions of the newspaper on 20 January 2007, 27 January 2007 and 17 February 2007.
The Claimant describes himself as a physician and scientist specialising in the area of nutritional research. He is the founder of the Dr Matthias Research Institute in California, which is a medical research and development organisation set up to investigate the health benefits of micronutrients in fighting a number of diseases.
Proceedings were commenced on 6 July 2007, with Particulars of Claim served on 9 July 2007. The meanings attributed to the articles were as follows:
January 2007 (“the first article”):
“… that the Claimant was a vitamin peddling Aids denialist who falsely claimed that his vitamin pills are a more effective treatment for AIDS than antiretroviral drugs”.
January 2007 (“the second article”):
“… that the Claimant was selling ridiculous vitamin pills on the back of his false claim that they were better than antiretroviral drugs in treating HIV and AIDS.”
February 2007 (“the third article”):
“… that the Claimant was a vitamin-peddling anti-medication salesman who was guilty of exploiting vulnerable Aids victims in South Africa by selling them ridiculous vitamin pills on the back of his false claim that his pills were better than antiretroviral drugs in treating HIV and AIDS and was thereby substantially responsible for the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people”.
A Defence was served on 1 October 2007. It advanced defences of justification and fair comment. In relation to the first article, the Defendants contend that the article is true in the meanings that the Claimant:
“(1) has made false and irresponsible claims that his vitamin pills provide more effective treatment for HIV/AIDS than antiretroviral (“ARV”) medication;
(2) has vigorously and irresponsibly campaigned against ARV medication being made available through the public health system in South Africa; and
(3) is associated through his colleague Anthony Brink with an appallingly extreme attack against Zackie Achmat following his successful campaign for making ARV medication available through the public health system in South Africa”.
In relation to the second article, the Defendants contend (in para 7 of the Defence) that the article is true in the meaning that:
“the Claimant was selling vitamin pills on the back of the false and ridiculous claim that they provide better treatment for HIV/AIDS than ARV medication.”
In relation to the third article, the Defendants contend (in para 10 of the Defence, in the form in which it was originally drafted), that the article is true in the meanings that the Claimant:
“(1) aggressively and irresponsibly sells to AIDS victims in South Africa the false message that his vitamin pills provide better treatment for HIV/AIDS than ARV medication;
(2) has misled people in South Africa into rejecting ARV medication for HIV/AIDS in favour of his vitamin pills;
(3) has substantially contributed to the “madness” (whereby ARV treatment is discredited and is rejected by HIV/AIDS sufferers in preference for vitamins) which has perhaps let hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa die unnecessarily”.
Further, in relation to the third article, the Defendants contend (in para 13 of the Defence) that insofar as the third article would be understood to mean that the Claimant “has contributed in large part to a madness which has perhaps let hundreds of thousands of people die unnecessarily”, then this is fair comment.
In relation to damages, the Defendants (in para 15 of the Defence) purport to rely upon the publication by the Defendants of earlier articles upon which the Claimant did not sue.
A Reply was served on 2 January 2008. The Defence and the Reply are each long documents, 30 pages (plus 17 pages of attachments) and 41 pages, respectively.
APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE COURT AT THIS HEARING
On 23 January 2008 the Claimant issued an Application Notice seeking the following orders under CPR Part 3.4(2) (save as otherwise stated):
i) that Paragraph 5(3) of the Defence and the supporting particulars of justification under Paragraphs 12(48) to (50) be struck out (“the Polly-Peck Application”);
ii) that Paragraph 10(3) of the Defence and the supporting particulars of justification under Paragraphs 12(44), 12(45) and 12(47) (“the 'perhaps' Application”) —this application is based in the alternative on under CPR Part 53 PD4.2;
iii) that Paragraph 12(38) of the Defence be struck out;
iv) that the Claimant be granted summary judgment on the Fair Comment plea in para 13 of the Defence, under CPR Part 53 PD4.2 and/or Part 24 (“the Summary Judgment Application”); and
v) that the words referring to previous publications in paragraph 15 of the Defence be struck out (“the Dingle Application”).
On 11 February 2008 the Defendants issued an Application Notice seeking permission to Amend the Defence in terms of the accompanying draft. This is not disputed, except in relation to paras 10 and 13. Mr Nicklin submits that the draft amendments, while curing one defect which the Claimant had pointed out, nevertheless raise another. The issue arises under the 'perhaps' application and will be considered below.
THE POLLY PECK APPLICATION
The Claimant's submissions
The Claimant seeks to strike out the Lucas-Box meaning advanced in Paragraph 5(3) of the Defence (see para 4 above). Mr Nicklin submits that the Claimant did not complain of those words in the article which give rise to the meanings in Paragraph 5(3) of the Defence. It is common ground that a claimant is entitled to isolate in the words complained of a “separate and distinct” defamatory statement, if there is one, and that the Defendants are not then entitled to assert the truth of other defamatory statements by way of justification. That is what the Claimant submits the Defendants have done in this case.
In such a case, it is not in dispute that the legitimate parameters of a Defence of justification can be stated (as Mr Nicklin did in his Skeleton argument) as follows:
i) In determining whether a Defendant's Lucas-Box meaning is a permissible meaning, the Defendant is, of course, entitled to rely on the whole of the publication, to put the words complained of in their proper context, and is not limited by the words selected for complaint by the Claimant ( Polly Peck v Trelford [1986] QB 1000per O'Connor LJ at p.1020e-g; Cruise v Express Newspapers plc [1999] QB 931,950g).
ii) The Court has to decide whether there are “two distinct libels” (i.e. that of which the Claimant complains and that which the Defendant seeks to justify). “Distinct” in this context means that “the imputation defamatory of the plaintiff's character in the one is different from the other”: see Polly-Peck p.1021A.
iii) Only if the several defamatory allegations in their context have a common sting, is the Defendant is entitled to justify this common sting: see Polly-Peck p.1032D-E.
iv) Further, although the court's case management concerns to keep libel actions within their proper bounds can be traced back to long before the introduction of the CPR, the CPR re-emphasises the importance of limiting actions to the central issues to be determined. For example, in McKeith v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2005] EMLR 780 Eady J held that the Court needs to identify the “real issue” at the heart of the case [17]:
“For the purpose of defining what the “real issue” is, one is not confined to that which is pleaded. It is necessary to stand back from the formulation of the case by the parties' counsel and to take a broad and non-technical approach. That would plainly follow from such cases as Polly Peck and Rechem International Ltd v Express Newspapers, The Times, 18 June 1992. In that case Neill LJ referred to the need to reduce the “expense and complexity” of libel actions and stated that:
“A balance has to be struck between the legitimate defence of free speech and free comment on the one hand and on the other hand the costs which may be involved if every peripheral issue is examined and debated at the trial”.
What is or is not “peripheral” must be judged objectively, on the facts of the individual case, having regard to both of those considerations.”
The first article includes the following:
“If you think the intuitionists and vitamin peddlers in the UK are weird, you really want to go to South Africa, where President Thabo Mbeki has a long history of siding with the HIV denialists, who believe that HIV does not cause Aids (but that treatments for it do), and where his health minister talks up fruit and vegetables as a treatment, as we have previously covered here.
In this world, which is not as remote as you might think from where you're sat, Zachie Achmat is a hero: the founder of the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, he recently won a break-through in his long battle against the vitamin-loving Aids denialists of Mbeki's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joseph and Others v Spiller and Another
...proved." 41 Mr Price, for the defendants, relied on the judgment of Tugendhat J in Matthias Rath v Guardian News And Media Limited & Anr [2008] EWHC 398. On the facts of that case, the judge referred, at paragraph 81, to Kemsley having been "overtaken" by section 6 of the 1952 Act. He state......
-
Bruno Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd
...time that precedes the occasion of the libel that is in suit." 82 The rule in Dingle was considered in Rath v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 398 (QB), where the defendant pleaded reliance on a failure by the claimant to complain about similar allegations in previous articles published ......
-
Clarke v Bain
...separate element of injury to feelings.” 52 Mr Busuttil also refers to the principle which was summarised in Rath v Guardian [2008] EWHC 398 (QB) at [13(iv)] as follows: “although the court's case management concerns to keep libel actions within their proper bounds can be traced back to lon......
-
Tilting at Windmills: the Defamation Act 2013
...emailscritical of a paper written by the claimant. In BCA vSingh [2010] EWCA Civ 350 CA; [2011] 1WLR 133 and Rath vGuardian Newspapers [2008] EWHC 398 (QB) the defendants were sued inrespect of newspaper articles. In El Naschie vMacMillan Publishers Ltd [2012] EWHC 1809 (QB),the statements ......