![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Winslet v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2009] EWHC 2735 (QB) (03 November 2009) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/2735.html Cite as: [2010] EMLR 11, [2009] EWHC 2735 (QB) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
OF
JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
![]() ![]() Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
EADY
____________________
KATE WINSLET |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED |
Defendant |
____________________
Mark Warby QC (instructed by Foot Anstey) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 20 October 2009
____________________
OF
JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Eady
:
"1. Theoffer of amends
is accepted.
2. The terms have yet to be agreed.
3. Our client reserves the right to make an application for a statement to be read in open court to vindicate our client if that cannot be agreed."
Thus the Claimant was confirming, as she had made clear throughout, that it was her intention, if the terms of
an apology could not be agreed, to apply to the court for a unilateral statement to be read.
"It was Kate Winslet's normalcy … that made us root for her and queue up to watch her films, that made her performances in her early movies, such as Sense and Sensibility, so believable and touching.
But then she caught a nasty doseof
Hollywooditis. …
But Kate? Surely she is more normal than most? Why would she give up that unique appeal, as vital to her success as Angelina Jolie's lips and hips are to hers, and give up that appeal so completely and utterly so that she has become, in my opinion, as drippy and as impossibly vain as the restof
them?
The signs were all there, brewing away, early on. Kate was, compared to most screen performers, curvy and normal looking, albeit with an open, handsome face that, as one female editor pointed out, 'is at once good-looking enough to convey great beauty, but relaxed enough for character roles'.
But like many women who dislike how they look, Kate made a big pointof
mentioning her size, over and over again, as if she were OK with it, which
of
course she wasn't. …
I have always found that the more a (skinny) actress denies that she ever diets, that she eats like a horse, the reverse is true.
There is no way Kate – despite her protestations the other day that 'As long as allof
this is going on, I have stopped exercising and am eating whatever I want. That [exercise] has gone out
of
the window for now because I haven't got time what with awards ceremonies and film premieres', or that it is her Narciso Rodriguez gowns that nip her in and push her up in all the right places – has not worked supremely, vomit-inducingly hard to get the figure she has today.
I can see the fact she has 'gone for the burn' etched on her woefully drawn features. She might say it is down to 20 minutesof
gentle Pilates a day but, trust me, it ain't. I've done that amount
of
Pilates for years and I do not have anything approaching Ms Winslet's enviable muscle tone.
Of
Come on Kate, just be honest about how hard it is to be that size – don't pretend that you are still normal.
The numberof
times Ms Winslet has appeared naked on screen (from early on in her career, in Jude through Hideous Kinky, Little Children and right up to her BAFTA-nominated performance in The Reader) tells me one thing: she is so proud
of
what she has achieved with her body that she is jolly well going to show it off.
Listen to what she said when she was complimented on her natural breasts by Oprah Winfrey, and her attitude to appearing naked by none other than Halle Berry. 'That is worth all the pain!'
If she were blasé about her body, why would there have been pain? … "
Alongside the article there appeared a number of
photographs
of
the Claimant's naked body, which were taken from films in which she had appeared over the years.
" … that the Claimant had lied publicly about her exercise regime".
"Kate Winslet
AN article on January 30 compared Miss Winslet's appearance with comments she made about having 'stopped exercising'. We accept that Miss Winslet was not being duplicitous in making her comments or seeking to deliberately mislead about her exercise regime. We apologise for any distress caused."
"The Claimant is a highly successful Oscar winning actress with a very high public profile in this jurisdiction and throughout the world.
The Defendant is the publisherof
the Daily Mail, a newspaper with a daily circulation in the jurisdiction, in excess
of
2.2 million and a significantly higher readership.
On 30 January 2009 the Defendant published on page 28 and 29of
the Daily Mail an article entitled "Should Kate Winslet win an Oscar for the World's most irritating actress?" which was accompanied by several naked photographs
of
the Claimant in various films.
The article falsely claimed that the Claimant had publicly lied about her exercise regime.
The Claimant has frequently asserted the rightof
women to accept the way that they look and by accusing her
of
trying to mislead the public, the Defendant caused her a great deal
of
distress. It was simply not true.
The article was also offensive in tone which caused the Claimant further upset and embarrassment, particularly when coupled with the gratuitous photographs.
The Claimant, through her solicitors, wrote to the Defendant and requested an apology. The Defendant refused to apologise so the Claimant issued proceedings forlibel
in March 2009.
In the faceof
those proceedings, the Defendant made an unqualified
Offer of Amends
, thereby accepting that the allegation was completely false and that it had no defence to the proceedings.
The Defendant published an apology on 4 September accepting that the Claimant had not been duplicitous in making her comments or seeking to deliberately mislead about her exercise regime.
The Defendant has also agreed to pay substantial damages to the Claimant and to pay her legal costs.
In these circumstances and this statement in court having been read out in Court, the Claimant considers that she has been fully vindicated, her reputation has been restored and accordingly is happy to bring these proceedings to a close.
My Lord, it only remains for me to ask for leave that the record be withdrawn."
I am unable to find anything in this draft that is inconsistent with the way she has pleaded or expressed her complaint from the outset.
" …
(2) The party accepting theoffer
may not bring or continue proceedings in respect
of
the publication concerned against the person making the
offer
, but he is entitled to enforce the
offer
to make
amends
, as follows.
(3) If the parties agree on the steps to be taken in fulfilmentof
the
offer
, the aggrieved party may apply to the court for an order that the other party fulfil his
offer
by taking the steps agreed.
(4) If the parties do not agree on the steps to be taken by wayof
correction, apology and publication, the party who made the
offer
may take such steps as he thinks appropriate, and may in particular–
(a) make the correction and apology by a statement in open court in terms approved by the court, and
(b) give an undertaking to the court as to the mannerof
their publication.
(5) If the parties do not agree on the amount to be paid by wayof
compensation, it shall be determined by the court on the same principles as damages in defamation proceedings.
The court shall take accountof
any steps taken in fulfilment
of
the
offer
and (so far as not agreed between the parties)
of
the suitability
of
the correction, the sufficiency
of
the apology and whether the manner
of
their publication was reasonable in the circumstances, and may reduce or increase the amount
of
compensation accordingly.
(6) If the parties do not agree on the amount to be paid by wayof
costs, it shall be determined by the court on the same principles as costs awarded in court proceedings.
(7) The acceptanceof
an
offer
by one person to make
amends
does not affect any cause
of
action against another person in respect
of
the same publication, subject as follows … "
" … it seems to me that an opportunity to make a statement in open court was thus seen more than 50 years ago as something which was an incident, or partof
the available procedure, in a defamation action which the plaintiff was at least entitled to expect to be available to him, provided that the terms
of
the statement were approved by the judge and there was nothing in the case which made it unfair to another party to the statement to be made.
The present rule, RSC, Ord 82, r.5, which derives from the previous RSC, Ord 22, r.2 introduced in 1933, provides for the makingof
a statement in open court with the leave
of
the judge, both when there has been acceptance
of
money paid in and when the action is settled before trial without a payment into court.
The judge was right, in my view, to regard the settlementof
proceedings as a public good which the court should encourage and facilitate if, having regard to the interests
of
all the parties, it is right and just so to do. Although a party has no right to make a statement in open court upon which he can insist if the circumstances are such that the judge cannot in his discretion approve that course, it seems to me that parties who have made a bona fide settlement
of
a defamation action and ask leave to make a statement in open court may expect to be allowed to do so unless some sufficient reason appears on the material before the judge why leave should be refused to them. By saying that he did not regard either party as having a burden
of
proof, while acknowledging that it is desirable for settlement to be facilitated, I think the judge meant, as he said, that he must have regard to the interests
of
all parties; but, if there is no sufficient reason to refuse it, a plaintiff who has reached a settlement with a defendant should be allowed to make an approved statement. I think the judge was right in his approach."
Of
"Finally for the reasons already given, the opportunity to make a statement in open court is an incidentof
the court's procedure which parties who settle such an action can be expected to be allowed to use unless there is some sufficient reason to cause the court to refuse to approve that course."
It would be quite artificial to regard it as a continuation of
the proceedings, in those circumstances, since continuation is the antithesis
of
settlement.