Not content with its cultural and financial status (ahem, former financial status?) London has also become the libel capital of the world. This has sparked fears that the bonanza for lawyers and claimants is having a “chilling” effect on freedom of speech. And led to some absurd stuff which we will come on to; first the serious bit…

No-win no-fee arrangements (plus a flipped burden of proof) mean it has little downside for litigious claimants but it’s a potential money-pit for defendants. Last year, Jaron Lewis, a media partner at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain told the Guardian, “For some publishers the cost of losing a libel trial, or even winning one, might put them at risk of closure,” said Lewis. “It is not the level of damages so much as the requirement to pay a claimant’s legal costs, which will often be a significant six-figure sum.”

Jack Straw recently cited one case in which a regional newspaper was forced to pay damages of £5,000 to a plaintiff but £50,000 to the plaintiff’s lawyer.

American newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Boston Globe have even warned that they may be forced to stop selling copies in the UK because of the risk of being sued.

So far so serious. Now for something silly…

One of our national newspapers was recently threatened with a libel action over a crossword clue. The paper’s crossword had a clue which invited the solver to name the current man of a young actress.

One of London’s top libel lawyers representing a young man, also an actor (apparently of the minor celebrity variety – we don’t know who) complaining that the number of letters in the answer to the clue was the same as the numbers of letters in the surname of their client!

Since he was adamant that he was NOT seeing the young woman in question, he had been potentially libelled, so would the paper a) promise not to do it again, b) pay his costs and c) pay damages.

Yet another reason to remove the ‘Great’ from Britain.