Mr Anthony Gale v Mr Calogero Scannella
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Collins Rice |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 1225 (QB) |
| Date | 07 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2019-003478 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2021] EWHC 1225 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE HONOURABLE Mrs Justice Collins Rice
Case No: QB-2019-003478
Mr David Hirst (instructed by Pinder Reaux Solicitors) for the Claimant
Mr John Stables (instructed by direct access) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 8 th December 2020 & 24 th March 2021
Introduction
These are proceedings to determine quantum of compensation in a defamation action which has been settled under the Offer of Amends procedure (sections 2 and 3 of the Defamation Act 1996).
Factual Context
The context is the fiercely loyal and partisan world of local football. Powerfully felt grievances have divided two football families and their respective friends and supporters.
The Claimant, Mr Anthony Gale, was manager and coach at Walton Casuals Football Club, which plays in the Southern League. It is a family-run club: the chairman is Mr Gale's father, former Blackburn Rovers player and current Sky TV commentator Mr Anthony Gale Sr, and the vice-chairman and the general manager are another father and son, the Saunders. From 2003 to 2008 Mr Gale had coached the boys' and ladies' academies at Chelsea FC, before moving to Millwall FC to another role working with young players. He was appointed first team manager of Walton Casuals FC in 2016, and ran the club's academy scheme, providing football training and development to some of the schools in Walton-on-Thames. He also ran a private youth football academy enterprise called AGA Fit, offering after-school coaching to youngsters.
The Defendant, Mr Calogero Scannella, was the teenage student son of Mr Frank and Mrs Jo Scannella. The Scannellas had key roles in running and promoting Walton Casuals Juniors FC. Despite the name, the Juniors Club was entirely separate from Walton Casuals FC; it was a non-profit community club run on a voluntary basis with a focus on nurturing local grass-roots football involvement among young people.
A major rift opened up between the two organisations, and between the two families personally, in 2018. The rival accounts of the causes are at variance. It may have had to do with irreconcilable differences in the vision for local youth football in the area, with competition for resources and facilities, or with views about the organisation, success or failure, and interrelationships between the clubs, or simply with the ambitions, preferences and personalities of the different people involved. In any event, by all accounts, the rift became increasingly disruptive, bitter and personal.
The Publications
In October 2018, Mr Scannella created some pseudonymous Twitter accounts for the purpose of posting and ‘discussing’ defamatory tweets about Mr Gale. Four tweets are complained of in these proceedings. They give the impression of a conversation among the accounts questioning why Mr Gale had been “kicked out” of Chelsea FC and suggesting the truth lay in a “darker secret” being kept quiet. The nature of the secret was indicated by the hashtag #MeToo: ubiquitous shorthand at the time for the experience of women subjected to unwelcome sexual attention from men in a position of power, particularly in the workplace. The tweets wondered whether the schools Mr Gale worked with, and the leadership of the Walton Casuals women's teams, knew about the secret, and questioned if he was fit to be trusted around or to teach young girls and kids.
Mr Scannella ‘@-ed’ (mentioned by addressing) 16 organisations in the tweets. These included Walton Casuals FC, the chair of the Walton Casuals women's team, Walton Casuals Juniors FC, Chelsea FC and Chelsea Women's FC, a number of local football clubs, the national and local Football Association, the local borough council, a number of accounts in the education system and the Metropolitan Police.
Mr Gale says he became aware of the tweets because his own Twitter settings alerted him that he had been mentioned in them. Of course, it was not apparent who had sent them. The police were involved, and in March 2019 they traced the origin of the tweets to Mr Scannella's home. Mr Scannella immediately acknowledged that he was the source.
Procedural History
Mr Gale's solicitors sent a letter before action to Mr Scannella on 3 rd May 2019 complaining of defamation. Mr Scannella's solicitors responded on 11 th June 2019 with an Offer of Amends pursuant to s.2 of the Defamation Act 1996. The offer was of a full written apology, and correction and retraction sent to the ‘@ed’ accounts. It confirmed the pseudonymous Twitter accounts had been deleted some months previously. It did not accept any of the consequences to Mr Gale alleged in his letter before action, nor that compensation was payable.
Mr Gale's solicitors responded on 1 st July 2019 seeking clarification, and suggesting a formal defamatory ‘meaning’ of the tweets (that Mr Gale had MeToo form for abusing kids/women) which was unfounded and totally wrong, and indicating in broad terms that the Offer was likely to be accepted. However, on 16 th July, Mr Scannella's solicitors emailed back saying they had been told by Surrey Police that Mr Gale was facing criminal proceedings for assaulting a woman, his former partner; they sought confirmation that in these circumstances Mr Gale would be discontinuing his defamation claim.
Next, Mr Gale issued his defamation claim on 1 st October 2019, filing and serving particulars of claim on 30 th January 2020. Acknowledgment of service followed on 12 th February. On 23 rd March 2020 Mr Scannella wrote to make an unqualified Offer of Amends: a suitable correction and sufficient apology to Mr Gale, published in a reasonable manner, and ‘such compensation (if any) and costs as may be agreed or determined to be payable’. He repeated his original unreserved apology and offer to make a correction and retraction to the ‘@-ed’ accounts. He took issue, however, with the form of words suggested by Mr Gale's solicitors on 1 st July 2019, saying it would be wrong for his apology to be worded in a way that might be taken to absolve Mr Gale of the conduct alleged in the criminal proceedings (to which he in due course pleaded guilty). The letter then set out why Mr Scannella said no compensation was due to Mr Gale. He said publication of the tweets had been limited: the pseudonymous accounts had no followers who could have read them, and there was no evidence they had been read or shared at the ‘@-ed’ accounts or retweeted by them. He said Mr Gale had not suffered any of the specific ‘serious harm’ pleaded in his particulars of claim, and these particulars were ‘apparently false’.
Mr Gale's solicitors responded on 4 th May 2020 accepting the Offer of Amends and suggesting a revised form of apology as follows:
“ I suggested in 2018 football coach @AnthonyGale1983 was an undisclosed MeToo perpetrator who repeatedly exposed female players he coached to unwanted sexual attention, for which he was kicked out of his club – matters which presented a safeguarding risk as he also coached children. These suggestions were unfounded and totally wrong. Following contact from Mr Gale's solicitors @PinderReaux, and the issuance of a claim in the High Court against me, I can confirm that I am very sorry for the hurt and embarrassment caused to Mr Gale, his family and his business.”
The letter, however, characterised the apology as by now ‘belated’, and responded in some detail on the questions of publication and serious harm, reasserting Mr Gale's claim to be entitled to compensation.
Mr Scannella responded on 20 th May agreeing the form of apology subject to the deletion of “ his family and his business” and the arrangements for publication. He denied the apology was ‘belated’, and pointed to delays in Mr Gale's conduct of his claim (itself issued days before the expiry of the limitation period). He expanded his case on the evidence relating to publication and serious harm and on the ‘falsity’ of Mr Gale's particulars. He continued to assert no compensation was payable.
Mr Scannella tweeted his public apology and retraction on 12 th June 2020, in the form proposed. He sent it to the ‘@-ed’ accounts. Correspondence however continued on the issues of compensation and costs. On 10 th September 2020 Mr Scannella made an open offer to pay Mr Gale £4,500, but stating that “ as your client's costs have been run up in the pursuit of a dishonest claim for damages and have been wasteful, I decline to pay any of his costs”. This proposition was rejected by Mr Gale on 21 st September 2020.
On 28 th September it appears that Mr Gale's solicitors purported to agree to settle the compensation claim at £4,500 but sought to list a hearing to determine the claim for costs. This in turn was rejected by Mr Scannella. Evidence and submissions on quantum of compensation were heard over two days in December 2020 and in March 2021.
Legal Framework
The Offer of Amends procedure under section 2 of the Defamation Act 1996 is the agreed relevant legal context. By subsection 2(4), an offer to make amends has three constituent elements. It is an offer: (a) to make a suitable correction of the statement complained of and a sufficient apology to the aggrieved party, (b) to publish the correction and apology in a manner that is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances, and (c) to pay to the aggrieved party such compensation (if any), and such costs, as may be agreed or determined to be payable. Here, it is agreed that a suitable correction and sufficient apology have been made, and published in a reasonable manner, and that the case is now proceeding under s.2(4)(c) to the determination of the compensation ‘if any’ to be paid, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial