Monks v Warwick District Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MRS JUSTICE SHARP,Mrs Justice Sharp |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 959 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ08X00297 |
| Date | 07 May 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 959 (QB)
Before: Mrs Justice Sharp DBE
Case No: HQ08X00297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Mr Monks in person
Aidan Eardley (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 28 th April 2008
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.
Introduction
The Claimant, Mr Monks, is a chartered surveyor and owner of a Grade II listed house in Kenilworth. The Defendant is the local district council for the area in which the house is situated. Mr Monks brings proceedings for libel against the Defendant in respect of an email (“the Email”) sent on the 14 August 2007 by the Defendant's Communication and Press Officer, Richard Brooker, to a journalist from the Leamington Observer; and also in respect of an article which was published by the Leamington Observer on the 16 August 2007 under the headline “Taxpayers to foot £15,000 court bill over brick wall” ('the Article').
The trial (by jury) is due to begin on 15 June 2009, with a time estimate of 4 days. Time for exchanging witness statements has been extended, pending the determination of these applications, until 6 May 2009. Mr Monks was initially represented by solicitors and counsel, who settled all the statements of case, but has been acting in person since 26 January 2009.
The facts
The brief facts are as follows. In its capacity as the district council with responsibility for local planning issues, the Defendant brought a prosecution against Mr Monks in respect of his demolition of a wall at his house, which was alleged to be an offence contrary to section 9(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The prosecution failed. Mr Monks was acquitted at Warwick Crown Court in July 2007.
In August 2007 Mr Brooker was approached by a journalist from the Leamington Observer who was preparing an article on Mr Monks' acquittal and who requested an “on the record” response on behalf of the Defendant. Mr Brooker then sent the Email which was in the following terms:
“40 New Street, Kenilworth
We can say as follows:—
The property is a listed Victorian dwelling within the Kenilworth conservation area. The Council was alerted to the demolishment and removal of both front and side walls of the property by a number of concerned local residents. A visit from a Council Building Inspector confirmed that work was in progress to remove the walls. When the builders were advised of the listed status and asked to cease works the request was declined. Work continued, with no regard for conservation of the Victorian bricks. Contact was immediately made with the site owner, but all attempts at negotiation proved fruitless.
The Planning Committee had given various permissions for other works at the site as far back as 2001. However, at no time was permission sought, or given, for demolition of the boundary walls.
The removal of these walls constitutes a criminal offence under the Listed Buildings legislation and, as such, was listed for the Crown Court. The Council takes its statutory duties for the protection of listed buildings very seriously and there was significant local and statutory concern about the alterations taking place at the property. The council is very disappointed with the outcome of the case but will continue to carry out its duties to protect the heritage of the district. It is tragic that these historic Victorian walls have now been lost. [underlining added]
The estimated cost of the case is £15,000.”
The Article appeared in the Leamington Observer two days later. It set out part of the Email, but also included a great deal of other material, including a statement that the jury had acquitted Mr Monks after less than an hour's deliberation, and statements by Mr Monks himself. The full text of the Article is as follows:
“ Taxpayers to foot £15,000 court bill over brick wall
A court battle over a brick wall will cost taxpayers £15,000 after a jury cleared a Kenilworth man of its demolition.
Warwick District Council took the action against New Street resident John Monks after he carried out work on the front wall of his house which was listed as a “building of special architectural or historical interest”.
During the hearing at Warwick Crown Court last month, it was alleged that chartered surveyor Mr Monks had illegally knocked down the wall and then rebuilt it using a different colour of brick.
But Mr Monks argued that the work was for essential repairs on the wall after a car had hit it a number of years earlier and that the bricks used to repair it were more authentic that those taken out.
After hearing all the evidence, the jury took less than an hour to clear Mr Monks.
Warwick District Council has defended its decision to go to court and the £15,000 cost of the five-day hearing.
A spokesman said: “The council was alerted to the demolishment and removal of both front and side walls of the property by a number of concerned local residents.
“Kenilworth Town Council also made representations about the wall's demise.
“The removal of these walls constitutes a criminal offence under the Listed Buildings legislation and, as such, was listed for the Crown Court.
“The council takes its statutory duties for the protection of listed buildings very seriously and there was significant local and statutory concern about the alterations taking place at the property.
“The council is very disappointed with the outcome of the case but will continue to carry out its duties to protect the heritage of the district.
“The estimated cost of the case is £15,000.”
But Mr Monks says he has been left with the fall out of the case, especially the damage to his professional reputation.
He said: “The last three years have been absolute hell particularly because of the nature of my profession as a chartered surveyor.
“The whole prosecution was futile and the cost to myself and my business has been significant.
“It is a difficult undertaking to renovate a listed building as anyone who has tried will know.
“All I was trying to do was restore it and since then, I have had a number of comments on the good job that's been done.
“This is local government at its worst.”
These proceedings
Proceedings for libel were begun on 25 January 2008 and the Particulars of Claim were served on 8 February 2008. In paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim Mr Monks complains of two lines only from the Email (those underlined in paragraph 4 above). Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Particulars of Claim are as follows:
“5. The said words were reproduced in an article which appeared in the Leamington Observer on 16 th August 2007 under the headline “Taxpayers to foot £15,000 court bill over brick wall”. It is to be inferred from the facts and matters set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 above that this republication of the words complained of was the intended, and/or natural and probable or foreseeable, consequence of the Defendant's original publication of the email to the Leamington Observer referred to in paragraph 4 above.
6. In their natural and ordinary meaning the words complained of meant and were understood to mean that notwithstanding his acquittal, the Claimant was in fact guilty of the criminal offence under the Listed Buildings legislation for having removed the front and side walls of his property.”
Mr Monks claims aggravated damages. In relation to that claim, he relies on the allegedly malicious nature of the publication, on the fact that his acquittal was negated by the “on the record” statement by the Defendant, on the fact that the Defendant was alleging a “malicious vendetta” against him and on the way in which the criminal prosecution was prosecuted by the Defendant. He also claims that he should be compensated as part of an award of general damages for what is described as “the likelihood of a general loss of custom and business” the actual amount of which is said to be “impossible” to identify.
In its Defence served on 18 April 2008, the Defendant does not dispute that Mr Brooker had sent the Email, or that it is vicariously liable for his conduct in so doing. However it asserts (in trenchant terms) that the claim as pleaded is embarrassing, since it fails to make clear whether Mr Monks is claiming in respect of the Article as well as the Email. It also pleads two substantive defences. First, justification (truth) to a lesser defamatory meaning than that complained of by Mr Monks, namely that “despite the Claimant's acquittal, there had been sufficient evidence to suspect the Claimant of having committed a criminal offence under the Listed Buildings Legislation such as to justify the decision to prosecute him in the Crown Court”. Second, qualified privilege in relation to the publication of the Email, on the ground (broadly) that the expenditure of public money on Mr Monk's prosecution was a matter of legitimate concern to readers of the local newspaper. Therefore it is said, the Defendant had a social or moral duty to convey the explanation contained in the Email, in response to the queries of the journalist, and the readers had a corresponding interest in receiving such an explanation.
In his Reply, Mr Monks alleges that the Defendant was actuated by express malice. Reliance is placed (i) on the parts of the claim to aggravated damages to which I have already referred; (ii) on an allegation that (contrary to an assertion in the defence that the purpose of the Email was “to explain the reasons why the Council felt it right to prosecute Mr Monks”) the words in the Email obviously went beyond that purpose; (iii) on an allegation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tariq Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc and Board of Directors
...cannot be sued for a defamatory meaning which only arises from part of the media publication to which he has contributed: see Monks v Warwick District Council [2009] EWHC 959 (QB) [12]–[14] (Sharp J).” [65] But I am not sure the position here is quite so straightforward, for three reasons. ......
-
Tariq Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc and Board of Directors and Another
...cannot be sued for a defamatory meaning which only arises from part of the media publication to which he has contributed: see Monks v Warwick District Council [2009] EWHC 959 (QB) [12–14] (Sharp J)." 66 But I am not sure the position here is quite so straightforward, for three reasons. Firs......
-
Aleksej Gubarev v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
...material that reduces the gravity of its sting: see Economou v De Freitas [2016] EWHC 1853 (QB) [2017] EMLR 4 [17], and Monks v Warwick District Council [2009] EWHC 959 (QB) [12–14] (Sharp J, DBE). These points were not in dispute between the parties. I therefore approach the issue of me......
-
Anna Turley v Unite the Union
...of the article, the quote cannot be read in isolation to produce a more injurious meaning than the publication as a whole: Monks v Warwick District Council [2009] EWHC 959 (QB) [12]–[14] per Sharp J; Economou v De Freitas [2017] EMLR 4 [17] per Warby J; Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror plc & Other......