AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Android civilization v background1/23/2024 Given the gravity and scale of the publications and the intensity with which the allegations were advanced, the court awarded damages in the sum of £185,000. The court noted that it is legitimate to take that factor into account when attributing responsibility to a defendant and assessing damages. finally, an added layer of complexity in this case was the “grapevine effect” that a television broadcast could have, as described by the Court of Appeal in Cairns v Modi EWCA Civ 1382, such that the allegations made in one broadcast can spread, by word of mouth or by means of social media, and cause corresponding damage to a claimant’s reputation.Defences of truth and justification had been put forward, but, were ultimately struck out by the court, and those defences were held to be an aggravating element that was taken into account when assessing damages further, it was critical of the defendants’ position of advancing no substantive defence to the claim, but, nevertheless, making no offer to withdraw their statements or apologise.It observed that in principle that was obviously the correct approach to take, however artificial the exercise might seem Those broadcasts by the claimant were contemporaneous with some of the broadcasts made by the defendants and the court put to one side any damage caused to the claimant's esteem which were brought about by other allegations or publications which the defendants were not responsible for. in addition, it took into account when assessing damages two separate “unfortunate” broadcasts that had been made by the claimant which appeared to add to the scorn and vitriol directed his way.the Court stated that it intended to isolate the damage that flowed from the relevant broadcasts in this jurisdiction and it sought to compensate the claimant only in respect of those matters, given that there were other publications, in other parts of the world, which had caused the claimant damage.When calculating damages, the following points were made by the court: Moreover, the allegations in this case were described as “very serious”, going to the “core attributes of the Claimant’s personality”, and they had been extensively published to tens of thousands of viewers. The court held that the statements were “clearly defamatory” and none of the statements were successfully defended. The programmes were broadcast by the defendants in the UK. having made threats against the former Chairman of the Pakistan Securities and Exchange Commission.engaging in acts to obstruct justice by destroying or attempting to destroy evidence of a crime and.a traitor to Pakistan he was alleged to have conspired with foreign powers in an effort to damage the interests of Pakistan in return for payment.The claimant argued that the statements complained of portrayed him as: The claimant complained that in 24 episodes of a programme produced by the defendants, the defendants had mounted a campaign of abuse and defamation against him. Judgment in Mir Shakil-Ur-Raman v ARY Network Ltd, Fayaz Ghafoor Background The judgment provides a useful examination and reminder of the assessment of damages in defamation cases. In the case of Mir Shakil-Ur-Raman v ARY Network Ltd, Fayaz Ghafoor EWHC 3110 (QB), a well-known media magnate and the head of the largest media group in Pakistan succeeded in his defamation claim against his commercial rivals, with the court awarding the claimant substantial damages in the sum of £185,000. This article was produced by Nabarro LLP, which joined CMS on.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |