Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring v Associated Newspapers Ltd (First Defendant) Kathryn Knight (Second Defendant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | HHJ Parkes |
| Judgment Date | 17 March 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 543 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ15D02711 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 17 March 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 543 (QB)
His Honour Judge Parkes QC
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
Case No: HQ15D02711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Hugh Tomlinson QC and Ms Sara Mansoori (instructed by DLA Piper LLP) for the Claimant
Mr Andrew Caldecott QC and Ms Christina Michalos (instructed by Wiggin LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing date: 11 November 2016
HHJ Parkes QC:
INTRODUCTION
The claimant owns a building in South End, a mews near Kensington Square, London W8. In March 2015 she decided to paint the building in loud red and white vertical stripes, as an act of apparent retaliation against those who objected to her planning application for development of the site and change of use. As she herself put it, " the Council and [a] difficult neighbour had insisted that they wished the building to stay in commercial use … accordingly, I painted the building appropriately". Her behaviour attracted the attention of the first defendant (ANL), and prompted a number of news and comment stories in the Daily Mail and the ANL website, Mail Online. Two of those articles defamed the claimant, and she issued proceedings for libel.
The current application is for assessment of compensation pursuant to s3(5), Defamation Act 1996, following acceptance of a qualified offer to make amends.
The first article was published by ANL on 15 April 2015 on Mail Online. It was headlined "Revealed: the war hero's daughter who infuriated neighbours with her £15 million 'eyesore seaside hut' — and how she fell out with own family after feud". The words complained of were part of a longer article which referred to the Kensington planning dispute, to her father's wartime RAF record, and to litigation with a Mr Cobbe arising from a dispute about a property in Yeoman's Row. The offending words read as follows:
"Today Mail Online can reveal Mrs Lisle-Mainwaring has also fallen out with the family of her late husband Robert, who have accused her of failing to pass on cash and property worth millions after his death in 2007.
Robert Lisle, her stepson, said her behaviour does not surprise him, having last had contact with her in 2012 when they continued to row over the inheritance he believes is due to him and the wider family.
He said: 'She has made commitments and reneged on them. She's an extremely unpleasant character.'
His wife Sally claims Mrs Lisle-Mainwaring's life revolves around money, which has left her estranged from much of her family.
She said: 'She's fallen out with the family. It's sad, she's missing out on them growing up and getting married. But she's not involved because of her decisions.'
'Her husband promised money and property to his children and grandchildren but after he died it never materialised. They were promises my husband's father made, but she has never kept one.'"
The second article was written by Kathryn Knight, the second defendant, and published by ANL both on Mail Online (on 17 April 2015) and in the print edition of the Daily Mail on the following day. Headlined in part ' Toxic neighbour with a past as colourful as her £15m house', both variants of the second article contained two quite distinct components, both of which are complained of. For damages purposes, I am not invited to make any distinction between Ms Knight and ANL, which no doubt stands behind her. As before, the words complained of represent small parts of a longer article that revisited the Kensington planning dispute and the litigation over Yeoman's Row.
The first component of the second article raised a further defamatory matter which the claimant prefers to regard as private ('the closed matter'). By order of Master Yoxall dated 9 June 2015, the pleadings available for public inspection were redacted so as to exclude references to the closed matter, and although I shall deal with it as far as I can in this judgment, full elaboration has to be relegated to the confidential annex. What I can say is that the closed matter involves a serious allegation of wrongdoing which ANL has not sought to justify, and the publication of which I accept has caused the claimant particular anger and distress.
The closed matter aside, the second article elaborated on the allegations made by the claimant's stepson. The words complained of are as follows:
"Not long before he died, Robert says, his father told him he'd be well provided for once he had passed away. 'He told me that Yeoman's Row was being sold for around £40 million, and that I would be all right.'
'I'd seen a copy of his will sometime previously in which he left 15 per cent of the joint estate to me and 15 per cent to Patricia's cousin with provision made for the grandchildren and various charities.'
But after his father's death, Robert was surprised to find his father had made a new will in the year before his death, leaving everything to Zipporah. 'Obviously, I was taken aback, but I felt my father had entrusted her to look after the family financially and I had no reason to believe she would not.'
…
It was the next conversation about money that soured the relationship. 'By 2012, I'd become rather overweight and Zipporah told me she'd helped me pay off my £240,000 mortgage if I lost 2 st in the next few months,' Robert recalls.
It was a bizarre proposal, but he thought it was her way of finally passing on some of the money he'd expected. He took the offer seriously and lost the weight.
'She came for dinner in August 2012, then said she wasn't going to pay — the words she used were that she realised she was "reneging on a commitment"'."
The claimant instructed solicitors. The letter before action was sent on 21 May 2015, following an initial letter dated 17 April. Proceedings were issued on 9 June seeking damages, including aggravated and special damages, for libel. The meanings pleaded (other than in respect of the closed matter) were as follows:
First article — 15 April 2015
That the claimant had
i) made commitments to the family of her deceased husband, Robert, and then reneged on them in an extremely unpleasant fashion;
ii) after her husband's death, consistently failed to keep promises of money and property worth millions made by him to his children and grandchildren, thereby betraying his expectation and the trust placed in her.
Second article – 17/18 April 2015
That the claimant had
i) influenced her husband to write a new will excluding his family, then betrayed the trust placed in her by her late husband to look after his family financially and provide for them after his death from an anticipated £40 million proceeds of the sale of Yeoman's Row;
ii) deliberately and without good reason reneged on a commitment made to Robert Lisle to pay off his £240,000 mortgage if he lost weight.
The special damage claim, to which I shall return below, seeks to recover the claimant's costs incurred in removing from the internet alleged repetitions and republications of the words complained of by third parties.
After two extensions of time for service of the Defence, a qualified Offer of Amends was made on 27 August 2015. It closely, although not entirely, endorsed the defamatory meanings pleaded by the claimant in the Particulars of Claim, including the meaning pleaded in respect of the closed matter. That matter aside, the defendants accepted that the articles bore the following untrue defamatory meanings:
First article — 15 April 2015
i) The claimant had made commitments to the family of her deceased husband Robert and then reneged on them in an extremely unpleasant fashion;
ii) After her husband's death, the claimant consistently failed to keep promises of money and property worth millions made by him to his children and grandchildren, thereby betraying his expectation and the trust placed in her.
Second article – 17/18 April 2015
iii) The claimant betrayed the trust placed in her by her late husband to look after his family financially and provide for them after his death from an anticipated £40 million proceeds of the sale of Yeoman's Row;
iv) The claimant deliberately and without good reason reneged on a commitment made to Robert Lisle to pay off his £240,000 mortgage if he lost weight.
The defendants stated in the qualified Offer of Amends that they relied on a number of matters in mitigation of damages, in reliance on the principles set out in Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 579.
The qualified Offer of Amends was accepted by the claimant on 4 November 2015.
Thereafter, there were difficulties in agreeing a form of wording for an apology and statement in open court, but an agreed statement was read by the parties in front of Nicol J on 14 March 2016. A report of the statement was published in the issue of the Daily Mail dated 15 March 2016 and on Mail Online.
On 17 March 2016, the claimant started proceedings ('the Lisle litigation') in defamation and breach of privacy against her stepson, Robert Lisle, and his wife Sally, and in harassment against Robert Lisle alone. As far as the defamation claim was concerned, it was primarily expressed to relate to defamatory statements made to 'third parties including to journalists working for Associated Newspapers and The Telegraph (some of which were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rachel Riley v Mike Sivier
...for the Article. 187 The claimant cites as relevant comparators the awards in Turley (£75,000), Harrath v Stand for Peace Ltd [2017] EWHC 543 (QB) (£140,000), and Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EMLR 637 (£110,000). The defendant submits these authorities have no bearing on the facts of this 1......
-
Martin Gilham v MGN Ltd
...libels, the court has a discretion to compensate the claimant by a single award of damages: Lisle-Mainwaring v Associated Newspapers [2017] EWHC 543 (QB). In that case, whilst there were two defendants, the court was asked to treat them as 40 The reality in this case is that the articles w......
-
Mr Anthony Gale v Mr Calogero Scannella
...any appropriate discount for the Offer of Amends ( Cairns v Modi [2013] 1 WLR 1015; Lisle-Mainwaring v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2017] EWHC 543 (QB)) – taking care to avoid any 23 The issue of double-counting arises because Offer of Amends cases are a particular example of the general pr......