McManus and Others v Beckham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Waller,Lord Justice Clarke,Lord Justice Laws |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Civ 939 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2002/0003 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 04 July 2002 |
[2002] EWCA Civ 939
Lord Justice Waller
Lord Justice Clarke and
Lord Justice Laws
Case No: A2/2002/0003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
His Honour Judge Previte QC
(sitting as a High Court judge)
James Price QC; Mr Jonathan Barnes (instructed by Messrs Richards Butler) for the Claimants/Appellants
Desmond Browne QC; Mr Justin Rushbrooke (instructed by Messrs Lee & Thompson) for the Defendant/Respondent
The claimants allege that on 26 th March 2001 the defendant came into their shop and in a rude, loud and unreasonable way advised the three customers present that the autograph on a photograph of her husband, David Beckham, was a fake. They allege that the effect of what she also said was that the claimants habitually sold memorabilia with fake autographs, and that she was advising customers not to buy the same. They further allege that the incident got considerable press coverage, and that as a result of that coverage their business has suffered a dramatic down turn.
The question raised by this appeal is whether the claimants are entitled to rely on the press coverage in establishing the loss they say they suffered. The defendant suggests not and she applied to strike out those paragraphs of the particulars of claim in which the press publication and the losses said to be flowing therefrom are pleaded. His Honour Judge Previte QC, sitting as a High Court judge, by judgment dated 28 th November 2001 held that the paragraphs should be struck out, and this is an appeal from that decision.
The judge relied on various grounds. First he ruled that the newspaper articles relied on did not "repeat the slander" and on that ground alone would have struck out the paragraphs. Second he held that in any event the publications must have resulted from the independent act of a third party for whose acts the defendant was not in law responsible. Third he held that, since the claimants could not establish either that representatives of the press were present when she spoke the words or that she knew a particular publisher would repeat her words to the media, the paragraphs should be struck out.
The Particulars of Claim made the following allegations:—
"4. On 26 th March 2001, at the Shop, the Defendant spoke and published to the Third Claimant and Mr Gordon Philip Joseph Cook and Mrs Sandra Theresa Phelps and two unidentified female customers, all of whom were present in the Shop at the material time, of and concerning the Claimants and each of them and calculated to disparage them and/or to cause pecuniary damage to them in the way of their business words defamatory of them as attributed to her below: Defendant ("VB") "Excuse me but do not buy any autographs from this shop, they are all fakes. That is not my husband's signature out there."
….
(It is unnecessary to set out the whole quotation but it ends)
….
'VB' "I just don't want to see you people being ripped off."
5. The Defendant's publication of the words complained of foreseeably led to extensive media coverage, repetition and republication of the words complained of and/or their sting, including articles published on page 19 of the "Daily Mirror" for 28 th March 2001 and at www.mirror.co.uk entitled, "Posh goes stropping—BECK'S 'FORGERY FURY', at www.peoplenews. com for 29 th March 2001 entitled, "Posh Spice in feud with shopkeeper—Owner fears her rant could ruin business", on page 13 of the "News of the World" for 1 st April 2001 entitled, "POSH HAS ANOTHER BOOB JOB", on page 5 of the "News Shopper" for Kent for 4 th April 2001 entitled, "BLUEWATER: Family business may take legal action—Posh rows over signed picture and on page 11 of the "Sunday Mirror" for 8 th April 2001 entitled, '"Victoria Wreck 'em'" and between dealers, collectors and other individuals in the specialist celebrity autograph memorabilia market.
6. In their natural and ordinary meaning the said words or some of them meant and were understood to mean that in the course of conducting their business the Claimants were and would continue to be in the habit of dishonestly and fraudulently ripping off their customers by knowingly selling fake autographs.
9. By reason of the publication of the words complained of the First, Second and Third Claimants have been seriously injured in their personal reputations and business reputations and goodwill and have suffered distress and embarrassment and the First and Third Claimants, who both suffer from stress related illnesses, have had their respective mental and physical symptoms aggravated. The Fourth Claimant has been seriously injured in its business reputation and goodwill. Accordingly, the Claimants and each of them have suffered loss and damage.
PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGE
9.1…
9.2…
The Business has lost profits and gains that had it not been for the publication of the words complained of it would otherwise have acquired and has suffered a general loss of business. Based on a projected turnover on the basis of the Business' experience to the end of March 2001 the Business' effective lost turnover for the four months immediately following publication of the words complained of (April to July 2001 inclusive) amounted to £37,225. Losses have continued on a daily basis and the Claimants will provide full particulars of their claim under this head when the same become available.
11. Further or alternatively, in support of their claims for damages and/or in aggravation of damages the Claimants will rely on the following facts and matters:
Paragraphs 3 and 5 above are repeated. The Defendant routinely and assiduously courts publicity in all forms of media in relation to all aspects of her professional career and many aspects of her private life. As the Defendant well knew and could and did foresee her publication of the words complained of was likely to come to the attention of the national and local media, including in particular the tabloid press (in both its paper and Internet versions) and Internet bulletin boards, and was likely to be reported widely in such media in eye-catching and sensational terms and/or repeated in the specialist celebrity autograph market. Further or in the alternative it was the natural and probable consequence of the Defendant's publication of the said words that reports of them would appear in the media and/or be repeated within the specialist celebrity autograph market.
….
….
….
…."
Paragraphs 5, 9.3 and 11.1 are the paragraphs struck out by the learned judge.
The judge's approach was to start by considering whether the articles relied on "repeated the slander". He quoted in full the various articles. The first article in point of time was in the Daily Mirror of 28 th March 2001, and was in the following terms:—
"Posh goes stropping
BECKS 'FORGERY' FURY
SHE'S turned shopping into an art form … so when you're on the other side of the counter, Victoria Adams is one customer you don't cross.
We hear Posh Spice launched a furious four-letter tirade against a hapless assistant after she discovered the shop was selling what she believed to be fake autographs of her husband David Beckham.
The superstar singer was out with her mum Jackie and baby son Brooklyn at the Bluewater Shopping Centre, in Kent, when she spotted the signed pictures of the Manchester United and England star in the autograph shop, GT Recollections. The multi-millionaire went in to have a peek, and after taking a closer look, launched into a blistering rant, claiming the signatures were nothing like wot 'im indoors does.
The brave assistant said the £65 signed snaps were the real McCoy—which led to another volley of expletives.
Victoria, 26, remained unconvinced and started telling other customers not to buy any of the autographs because they were fakes.
She told bemused shoppers: It's so unfair on parents who spend a lot of money buying these for their children, and they're not the real thing.
"They shouldn't be allowed to get away with this." When we contacted the store they insisted they weren't selling fakes.
Chap
Manager Tim McManus said: "I bought these off a chap who collects autographs. He is the most reputable collector I know of. She seemed very upset, claiming it wasn't his signature and said some uncomplimentary things about us. We asked her to leave us a number so we could check it out, but she said she didn't have time.
She said she knows what her husband's signature like, but it was explained to me that what he does now is not a full signature, but just a squiggle. I don't know if Victoria was aware of that or not.
I've removed the one she complained about and intend to contact David.
I want to apologise for upsetting her, but I also want to resolve this in a respectful and friendly atmosphere.
But she wasn't very respectful in the shop, in all honesty. She was very aggressive … but this is a small family business and we like all our customers to be happy."
The judge held that that article did not repeat the slander because the words were not a general allegation of fraudulent selling, because a reasonable reader would understand simply that Mrs Beckham had detected what she believed to be a fake signature on a photograph of her husband and warned customers against buying photographs of her husband which bore fake signatures. He formed similar conclusions in relation to all the other articles save the News Shopper. In relation to the article in the News Shopper the judge said this:
"20. News Shopper
This article alleges that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seaga (Edward) v Harper (Leslie)
...is no evidence that the appellant was responsible for or caused his speech to be published in the media. In my view the case of McManus and others v Beckham [2002] 1 WLR 2982 is instructive. In that case Mrs. Beckham (B) spoke to persons in the claimants' shop advising them not to buy auto......
-
Michael Douglas (1st Respondent) Catherine Zeta-Jones (2nd Respondent) Nothern & Shell Plc (3rd Respondent) v Hello Ltd (1st Appellant) Hola S.A. (2nd Appellant) Eduardo Sanchez Junco (3rd Appellant)
...it is normally a fact-sensitive determination, which must carry with it a degree of inference and value judgment. As Laws LJ said in McManus v Beckham [2002] 1WLR 2982, at paragraph 39, in connection with a slander action, "The reality is that the court has to decide whether, on the facts b......
-
Mamadou Sakho v World Anti-Doping Agency
...passage (as it appeared in 9 th edition of Gatley, in substantially identical form) was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in McManus v Beckham [2002] 1 WLR 2982 at [11] (Waller LJ, with whose reasoning and conclusions Clarke and Laws LJJ agreed). There is no dispute between the pa......
-
Elena Baturina v Times Newspaper Ltd
...in further detail. There are two modern Court of Appeal authorities that need to be considered: Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283 and McManus v Beckham [2002] 1 WLR 2982. It is fair to say, at the risk of over-simplifying, that the appropriate test is that of foreseeability. It is legitimate to......
-
Tort Law
...foreseeable consequence: Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin[1997] 3 SLR(R) 46 at [129]–[130], per Rajendran J; McManus v Beckham[2002] 1 WLR 2982. There is a subtle (but nonetheless, important) difference between the ‘natural and probable consequence’ test in Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamt......
-
Publication and Republication
...by its repetition by the news media, even a partial publication of the original sting can be causative of damage. McManus v. Beckham, [2002] EWCA Civ 939 per Waller L.J. at para. 13. 3) Republication in the News Media The law on this topic is complex. Where a defendants defamatory expressio......