温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/case/cairns-v-modi-kc-v-mgn-ltd
点击访问原文链接

Cairns v Modi; KC v MGN Ltd - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
Cairns v Modi; KC v MGN Ltd - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases Cairns v Modi; KC v MGN Ltd Reference: [2012] EWCA Civ 1382

Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Judge: The Lord Chief Justice; Lord Neuberger; Eady J

Date of judgment: 31 Oct 2012 Summary: Defamation - Appeal - Damages

Download: Download this judgment

Appearances: Desmond Browne CBE KC - Leading Counsel (Appellant)  Andrew Caldecott KC - Leading Counsel (Claimant) 

Instructing Solicitors: Collyer Bristow for Mr Cairns; Fladgate LLP for Mr Modi; YVA Solicitors for KC; MGN Legal Department for MGN Ltd

Facts These conjoined appeals concerned the amount of damages awarded by Bean J in libel proceedings.

Cairns v Modi concerned the publication of a tweet which made allegations of match-fixing against a world famous cricketer. The Judge had granted an award of £90,000 following a full trial on justification. The Judge had proceeded by consent to accept the figure of 65 as the approximate number of publishees.

KC v MGN involved a false accusation in a newspaper that the real father of “Baby P”, a man of good character, had been convicted in the 1970s of raping a 14 year-old girl. However, KC was (and remains) anonymous due to a reporting restriction made in the Family Division. The articles did not name or identify KC but referred to Baby P’s ‘real father’. The Judge awarded £75,000 under the offer of amends regime, with a starting point of £150,000. The level of discount applied (50%) was not appealed.

Issue Whether the damages awards were disproportionate/excessive.

Held Appeal dismissed in respect of Cairns v Modi:

The Judge had been right to take into account the ‘grapevine effect’ of allegations on the internet. There is no general principle that damages should be less following a trial by judge alone, than after jury verdict, on the grounds that the judge will provide a reasoned judgment which may further vindicate the claimant. It is a fact-specific question but in this case, it is unlikely that cricket fans will have read the judgment with close attention and would more likely have been interested in the overall sum awarded. The Judge was entitled to increase the damages by £15,000 (i.e. 20%) to take account of the conduct of the trial by previous counsel (presumably on instruction by the defendant). The Judge was not obliged to give a more detailed breakdown of the award. A global figure was sufficient. There are three elements to damages in defamation cases – hurt feelings, injury to reputation and the need for vindication. The combination of circumstances and the different features which fall for consideration vary enormously and do not lend themselves to strict categorisation. The award was proportionate to the seriousness of the allegation and its direct impact on Mr Cairns. Appeal allowed in respect of KC v MGN:

Although the allegation that a man has been convicted of rape of a child is extremely serious, this case involved two distinct features: (i) that KC remained anonymous throughout the currency of the libel; and (ii) the falsity of the allegation was recognised and corrected at a very early stage. The reasoning on which the assessment of compensation was based attached too much importance to the large circulation and readership figures for The People. On this basis, the very limited nature and extent of publication as it might have impacted on KC’s reputation was not given sufficient focus. The Judge has a wide parameter for damages in libel cases. However, given the limited number of those who might have read or heard of the false allegation and appreciated that it did refer to him, and the relative speed with which it was regretted and withdrawn, the starting point was too high. A proportionate starting point would have been £100,000. Therefore, applying the 50% discount, damages should be reduced to £50,000. Comment This judgment is interesting for the clarification it provides on a number of points relating to libel damages:

Firstly, that there is no general principle that damages should be less following trial by judge alone than after verdict by jury.

Secondly, that a judge need not give a detailed breakdown of the elements that make up a damages award and can reach a global figure taking all aspects of the case into consideration.

Thirdly, where there are issues relating to identification of the claimant, the court should assess the actual number of readers who would have been able to identify the claimant and should not simply take the overall circulation figure as the scope of publication.

Finally, the Court of Appeal took into account the speed with which the Defendant made the offer of amends and apology in determining the starting point for damages, and not just at the subsequent stage of applying the % discount.

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* EmailThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录