Comments on: A holiday no foreign newspaper would take here

By: Patrick Alley

Patrick Alley — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:50:47 +0000

Duncan, thanks for the prompt correction. The issue on costs is one of the side effects of the ‘tourist’ part of libel tourism. Foreign domiciled litigants are hard to pursue if they fail to pay up!

By: Duncan Higgitt

Duncan Higgitt — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:43:12 +0000

Patrick – thanks for your comment. As you’ll see, I’m happy to have corrected the piece. Extremely glad to hear that you won, but depressingly not surprised that you have yet to be recompensed for your costs. A legal system that cannot redress an organisation like your’s in such a situation is a system that does not work, IMHO.

Will – agree totally. Whatever happened to the days of the derisory £1 damages that some judges used to take such delight in making (I think Elton John was one such recipient)? It is impossible to imagine how the reputations of the great and good are injured to such a degree that they can argue such large claims.

By: Patrick Alley

Patrick Alley — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:34:43 +0000

Dear Duncan,

I just read your excellent article in WalesHome on the UK libel laws – thanks for writing it as it’s such a crucial issue. Just one correction though: you say Global Witness was ‘warned off’ by Denis Christel Sassou Nguesso, the son of the president of the Republic of Congo, which is incorrect. Sassou Nguesso tried to injunct us for putting his credit card statements and other documentation on our website. We were not warned off, but in fact fought the injunction and won. Not only that, but the Judgement stated that ‘unless otherwise explained’ the documents suggested Sassou Nguesso was corrupt. Had we been in front of the notorious Judge Eady, a favourite of Sassou’s lawyers Schillings, then there might have been a very different outcome. The documents are still on our website (http://www.globalwitness.org/media_library_detail.php/556/en/congo_is_presidents_son_paying_for_designer_shoppi), but we are £50,000 poorer because although we were awarded costs, Sassou Nguesso has yet to pay up!

You also quote Eady as saying that people don’t usually bring libel actions to make money. That may or may not be true, but it is a fact that some of the world’s most egregious – and enormously rich – individuals, use their wealth to crush free speech by using our court system to launder their reputations.

There is no doubt our privacy and libel laws need to change in order to protect the right of free speech, but until they do it is critical that organisations like ours are not deterred from reporting the truth, in the public interest, although the financial risks are frighteningly high.

Yours sincerely,

Patrick Alley
Director
Global Witness

By: Will

Will — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:46:15 +0000

A good and thorough article Duncan. How ironic that litigious Americans (& others) should choose to sue in UK courts. I was aghast when reading about ‘libel tourism’ recently in the Sunday Times – a phenomenon of which I’d been unaware.
Unless common sense prevails we won’t only see foreign newspaper and magazine titles disappear from newstands (and books, too), we’ll also have restricted UK web access to overseas sources of information.
The current law is an ass, ‘no-win no fee’ lawyers are to the net detriment of society, and free speech is too often challenged on spurious grounds.
And while on the subject, what about the absurd scale of some libel awards (especially if you are famous)?
I understand that foreigners seeking divorces (and large settlements) also favour UK courts over their own.
What a ridiculous state of affairs. Bring on the legal fee caps and change the law to stop foreign spats ending up in British courts.