John v MGN Ltd

Facts

A newspaper published by Mirror Group Newspapers printed an article about the singer Elton John that falsely said he suffered from an eating disorder. He sued MGN for libel. The jury found for him and awarded 25,000 pounds in compensatory damages and 275,000 pounds as exemplary damages, a total of 350,000 pounds. MGN appealed against the size of the award.

History

The jury awarded damages at trial. MGN appealed to the Court of Appeal against the award.

Issue

Whether, and how, a jury in a libel action should be given guidance about the proper level of compensatory damages, and whether the Court of Appeal could substitute its own figure for that of a jury; and when exemplary damages may be awarded in a libel case.

Held

Appeal allowed on damages. The jury award was grossly excessive. The Court of Appeal substituted 75,000 pounds, made up of 25,000 pounds in compensatory damages and 50,000 pounds in exemplary damages, and gave guidance on how juries should be directed.

Ratio

• A jury in a libel action may properly be reminded of the levels of awards in personal injury cases and of the Court of Appeal's power to substitute its own figure, so that the award is not out of proportion to what is necessary to compensate and vindicate the claimant.
• Exemplary damages may be awarded in libel only where the defendant published knowing the statement to be false, or reckless as to its truth, and calculated that the profit from the publication would exceed the compensation payable, and only if the compensatory award is not enough to punish and deter.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• An award that bears no sensible relation to the harm done to the claimant's reputation is a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression, and it is appropriate for the court to provide guidance that keeps awards within acceptable bounds.
• Juries are not able to compare the loss to reputation with the compensation for serious personal injury, and judges should invite them to consider that comparison.
• An award of exemplary damages was open on the jury's findings, but the sum of 275,000 pounds was out of proportion to what was needed to punish and deter.

Where it fits in the module

In Tort (FHS), John v MGN is the key case on remedies in defamation, and in particular on jury awards and exemplary damages. Candidates read it with Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd [1994] QB 670, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 442 and Defamation Act 2013, section 11, which removed the presumption of jury trial, and consider how far the appellate courts should control damages in defamation, what compensation for injured reputation means, and how awards compare with personal injury damages.

Criticisms

• Comparing damages for reputation with awards for personal injury is artificial, since the two kinds of loss are different in nature and the comparison provides only a rough guide.
• Jury trial of libel is combined with a power for appellate courts to replace the verdict, which weakens the role of the jury, and the proper division between the roles is unclear.
• The criteria for exemplary damages require the claimant to prove a calculation of profit, which is hard to prove and means that the remedy is rarely available despite deliberate falsehood.
• The guidance leaves the level of compensation for damage to reputation uncertain, because a comparison with personal injury awards gives only a rough range.