Defamation

• Author: International Law Group
• Pages: 204-206

Page 204

In this libel action, the Plaintiffs are Mohammed Jameel, a prominent Saudi Arabian businessman, and a trading company, Abdul Latif Jameel Co., Ltd., a Saudi Arabian trading corporation, of which Jameel was president and general manager. The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl. (Defendant) published an article edited and printed in Belgium and distributed in Europe, the U.S. and the Middle East. [Editorial Note: in the U.S., the senior Wall Street Journal reportedly sold over 2 million copies in 2004.]

The article reported that, at the request of U.S. enforcement agencies, the Central Bank of Saudi Arabia (CBSA) was tracking certain bank accounts to preclude their use in directing funds to terrorist organisations. Moreover, the article named, as CBSA account holders, a number of individuals and companies, including that of the Plaintiffs' trading group. Although the Plaintiffcompany neither owned property nor did business within the U. K., it had established a commercial reputation there. In its complaint, the Plaintiffs did not plead special damages, relying instead on the English common law presumption of damage.

In interlocutory proceedings, the first instance judge saw no merit in the Defendant's claim that Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as implemented by the U. K. Human Rights Act of 1998, Sch. 1, Pt I, had supplanted the common law rule. The Defendant also cited the defense of a qualifi ed privilege that protects responsible journalism when it writes about matters of public concern. The judge, however, rejected the defense, inter alia, because the Defendant had neglected to obtain the Plaintiffs' position on the inclusion of its name before publication. The jury found that Plaintiffs had proved the libel and awarded modest damages. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the Defendant's appeal.

On Defendant's appeal to the House of Lords, that body allows the appeal by a vote of 3 to 2. The majority rules that, under existing U. K. law, a trading company linked to the U. K. like Defendant (as noted above) could recover general damages for libel without pleading or proving special damage if the libelous article had a tendency to damage it in its line of business. Although the Convention regime attaches a fundamental importance to the freedom to speak and publish free from unjustifi able restraint, the rights under Article 10(1) are not absolute.

Thus, Con...