[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Chandler v O'Connor [2019] EWHC 3181 (QB) (22 November 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3181.html Cite as: [2019] EWHC 3181 (QB) |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Christopher Chandler |
Claimant |
|
- and – |
||
Arthur O'Connor |
Defendant |
____________________
The Defendant did not attend and was not represented
Hearing date: 6 November 2019
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin :
The Parties
The Tweets about which complaint is made
"Christopher Chandler, a New Zealand-born Monaco based money laundering billionaire who founded the Legatum Institute to shape Brexit has long been known to be employed by Russia. His source of funds is no secret to the French press."
and
"Before UK voted for Brexit, Legatum Institute struggled to be heard. Now it is one of Britain's loudest advocates for a 'hard' Brexit, championing a position favoured by Putin through his Monaco based operative Christopher Chandler its founder."
"… Christopher Chandler of Legatum Institute sued me for tweeting information on their money laundering activities for Russia – he and his brother are supposed to have become billionaires from Gazprom. They are known to French Security for their Russian money laundering"
i) in respect of the May 2018 Tweets, that the Claimant:
"… is underhand and duplicitous in that he is using the Legatum Institute to strongly advocate for the most extreme form of Brexit, purportedly on behalf of and in the best interests of Britain, while covertly having long been employed and funded by the Russian state to do so and only championing that position on the basis that it is favoured by Putin as being in the best interests of Russia, not Britain."
ii) in respect of both the May 2018 and March 2019 Tweets, that the Claimant:
"… is guilty of criminal conduct in the form of money-laundering."
Hearing in the absence of the Defendant
i) On 6 August 2019, the sealed Order of Master Thornett was sent by post to the Defendant. I have been provided with a "Track and Trace" confirmation from Royal Mail confirming that the letter was delivered on 19 August 2019.
ii) In addition to being sent the Order in the post, the terms of the injunction contained in the Order were sent to the Defendant by a series of text messages on 31 July 2019, and the full text of the Order was sent by the same means on 6 August 2019.
iii) On 8 August 2019, the Defendant Tweeted:
"I have changed my mobile number – I have sent out my new one by mail. Keystone Law stuffed up my faithful old Nokia sending multiple messages on behalf of the Legatum Institute who are extreme Brexiters accused in the Commons of being Russian spies. They hacked into my emails."
The Defendant did not inform the Claimant's solicitors of his new mobile telephone number.
iv) The Defendant was sent the Application Notice and the Witness Statements in support on 11 September 2019, by a letter that was confirmed delivered on 16 September 2019. It appears that, for good measure, a further letter with the same enclosures was sent on 14 October 2019, and delivered on 17 October 2019.
v) On 26 September 2019, a further letter advised the Defendant that the hearing of the assessment of damages hearing had been fixed for 6 November 2019. That letter was delivered on 30 September 2019.
vi) Also, on 26 September 2019, Mr Coad, the Claimant's solicitor, Tweeted the following message to the Defendant:
"… Following default judgment being entered against you an application for summary relief including damages has been served on you. Please note that it has been listed for 6 November 2019… Please check your post at your Irish address for the relevant correspondence. If you would like to receive the documents electronically please provide an email address…"
vii) Following Mr Coad's efforts to contact the Defendant via Twitter, shortly afterwards the Defendant 'blocked' Mr Coad from following him on Twitter. I infer, without difficulty, that was as a result of Mr Coad's Tweet but I am satisfied that it demonstrates that the Defendant had received and read the message.
viii) The Defendant has not contacted the Court to ask for an adjournment or to explain his absence. He has not served any evidence, whether by the deadline of 16 October 2019 or otherwise. He has not provided the Court with any submissions. He has not instructed anyone to appear on his behalf.
ix) This refusal to engage is entirely consistent with the stance adopted by the Defendant to the proceedings throughout.
Summary Relief after default judgment
8. Summary disposal of claim
(1) In defamation proceedings the court may dispose summarily of the plaintiff's claim in accordance with the following provisions.
(2) The court may dismiss the plaintiff's claim if it appears to the court that it has no realistic prospect of success and there is no reason why it should be tried.
(3) The court may give judgment for the plaintiff and grant him summary relief (see section 9) if it appears to the court that there is no defence to the claim which has a realistic prospect of success, and that there is no other reason why the claim should be tried.
Unless the plaintiff asks for summary relief, the court shall not act under this subsection unless it is satisfied that summary relief will adequately compensate him for the wrong he has suffered.
(4) In considering whether a claim should be tried the court shall have regard to—
(a) whether all the persons who are or might be defendants in respect of the publication complained of are before the court;
(b) whether summary disposal of the claim against another defendant would be inappropriate;
(c) the extent to which there is a conflict of evidence;
(d) the seriousness of the alleged wrong (as regards the content of the statement and the extent of publication); and
(e) whether it is justifiable in the circumstances to proceed to a full trial…
9. Meaning of summary relief
(1) For the purposes of section 8 (summary disposal of claim) "summary relief" means such of the following as may be appropriate—
(a) a declaration that the statement was false and defamatory of the plaintiff;
(b) an order that the defendant publish or cause to be published a suitable correction and apology;
(c) damages not exceeding £10,000 or such other amount as may be prescribed by order of the Lord Chancellor;
(d) an order restraining the defendant from publishing or further publishing the matter complained of.
(2) The content of any correction and apology, and the time, manner, form and place of publication, shall be for the parties to agree.
If they cannot agree on the content, the court may direct the defendant to publish or cause to be published a summary of the court's judgment agreed by the parties or settled by the court in accordance with rules of court.
If they cannot agree on the time, manner, form or place of publication, the court may direct the defendant to take such reasonable and practicable steps as the court considers appropriate…
(1) This paragraph applies where -
(a) the court has ordered the defendant in defamation proceedings to agree and publish a correction and apology as summary relief under section 8(2) of the Defamation Act 1996; and
(b) the parties are unable to agree its content within the time specified in the order.
(2) Where the court grants this type of summary relief under the Act, the order will specify the date by which the parties should reach agreement about the content, time, manner, form and place of publication of the correction and apology.
(3) Where the parties cannot agree the content of the correction and apology by the date specified in the order, then the claimant must prepare a summary of the judgment given by the court and serve on all the other parties within 3 days following the date specified in the order.
(4) Where the parties cannot agree the summary of the judgment prepared by the claimant they must within 3 days of receiving the summary –
(a) file with the court and serve on all the other parties a copy of the summary showing the revisions they wish to make to it; and
(b) apply to the court for the court to settle the summary.
(5) The court will then itself settle the summary and the judge who delivered the judgment being summarised will normally do this.
(The same provisions appear in what is now §7.3 in the new Practice Direction 53B).
Assessment of damages: the law
Assessment of damages: evidence
"… once the seed of doubt has been sown in someone's mind [about a person's integrity], they are apt to silently distance themselves, or terminate the relationship, without saying a word or offering any explanation. Baseless lies of this nature, of criminal conduct, have costly consequences, not always immediately evident or readily quantifiable, but very real and enduring nonetheless."
i) the publishers of Express Newspapers paid £10,000 (and published a correction and apology) in respect of an article published on 26 November 2017 over an allegation, accepted by the publishers to be inaccurate, that the Claimant had assisted President Putin to gain control of Gazprom;
ii) the publishers of The Guardian paid £3,500 (and published an apology) in respect of an article concerning the Claimant's application for Maltese citizenship published on 31 January 2018; and
iii) on or around 18 May 2018, Another Europe is Possible Limited made a £250 donation to charity in lieu of damages (and published a correction) in relation to a video it had published on several social media platforms which included allegations concerning the Claimant's control over the Legatum Institute Foundation, its funding and the Claimant's personal views about Brexit.
Assessment of damages: conclusion
Correction and Apology