Libel Tourism: Hydra or Myth?
Jack Straw’s 10% cap on lawyers success fees in libel cases to counteract the “chilling effect” on freedom of speech hits trouble…
The new rules were expected to be in force by April, after an accelerated consultation but last week, Lord Martin, who once used around £21,000 taxpayers’ money on libel lawyers to defend his reputation, sought to delay the new rules. Which is bad news for poor old bloggers, writers, academics or anyone writing anything about anybody with lots of money.
Straw’s intention was to cap the “success fees” paid to lawyers in defamation cases. The “no win no fee” deals effectively doubled lawyers’ fees by claiming a success fee from the losing side of 100 per cent, on top of their usual rate. Making it a useful tool for the wealthy to stifle criticism by those lacking the resources to litigate.
Lord Martin has tabled a “motion of regret” in the House of Lords seeking more time to debate the plans.
In its article Wrestling with the libel hydra at the weekend, The Sunday Times considered several cases evidencing the need for reform.
Times: Now that everyone uses email it is rare to hear the whirr of a fax, so Jessica Asato was surprised when the ancient machine at the London offices of Progress, the left-wing think tank where she is acting director, came to life last October. She was even more surprised when she saw what was emerging — a letter from Carter-Ruck, the libel lawyers.
The law firm was threatening defamation proceedings on behalf of Sir Iqbal Sacranie, former general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, over a blog posted on Progress’s website three months earlier by Paul Richards, a special adviser to Hazel Blears when she was a minister.
But the growing pressure may not be enough after Martin’s intervention. With little time left before the general election, pushing changes through might be a struggle. Which will please some…
Mr Justice Eady, the UK’s most senior libel judge, for example. Britain’s best-known media judge (oft criticised for his judgements) has claimed that libel tourism is a ‘myth’ spread by parties unhappy at the outcome of cases.
Gazette: Speaking at the launch of City University’s new Centre for Law, Justice & Journalism last week, Eady said libel judgments hinge on balancing one individual’s human rights against another’s. There is no ‘hierarchy of rights’, he said, which created ‘great potential for disagreement’.
A few choice quotes from the same talk…
On super-injunctions:
“Super-injunctions are something of an artificial construct, blown up by the media recently. I’d never heard the term till it was mentioned till a few months ago.
“I’m not conscious that I’ve ever granted one, though it’s conceivable I might have done.”
On solicitors’ costs:
“Sometimes one suspects they may be over charging in the sense that more hours are spent handling documents than is strictly necessary, but it’s very difficult to establish that’s the case.”
On libel tourism:
“I would be interested to see the research on libel tourism, if there is any, because sitting where I do I don’t see an awful lot of it.”
Get the impression he’s not terribly sympathetic?
Quotes via journalism
March 22, 2010
“The new rules were expected to be in force by April, after an accelerated consultation but last week, Lord Martin, who once used around £21,000 taxpayers’ money on libel lawyers to defend his reputation, sought to delay the new rules. Which is bad news for poor old bloggers, writers, academics or anyone writing anything about anybody with lots of money.”
You’ve completely missed the point. Effective conditional fee agreements with realistic success fees mean that those without large incomes or assests can bring libel claims. The Straw reforms will restrict libel to the rich. Which is why the media is in favour of it. Once again powerful establishment interests have pulled the wool over the eyes of the well meaning left. One-nil to Murdoch and Dacre.
March 23, 2010
Hi Michael.
The point we were going for there was that thinly resourced defendants were less likely to roll over immediately if they weren’t faced with huge potential costs.
We do take your point though, that the current fee arrangements give small claimants a fighting chance of taking on newspapers etc.
The main issue though, is that there is a worrying trend of powerful interests using the libel laws to stifle debate.
The difficult question is how to create a balance where the law does not always favour the wealthy – a not uncommon problem in our system.
Ed.