The Empire strikes back

17 March 2009

Follow this link to view the full article by Gideon Benaim

Setting an upper limit on costs in defamation cases would amount to defendants getting unjustified special privileges over claimants, says Gideon Benaim

The Media's extensive lobbying, together with the imminence of a general election, has made the government succumb to a view promoted by the press regarding litigation costs in defamation actions.

It is said that such costs are disproportionately high and that they deter freedom of expression. It is a sad state of affairs that a vast, powerful and well-organised empire such as the media can influence government and the judiciary into action based on a series of arguments that just don’t stack up.

Media pressure
There are numerous bodies looking into the area of costs in so-called “publication proceedings”. Call me a cynic, but I cannot help but think that the impetus behind so many such enquiries stems from media pressure and lobbying.

The most recent illustration of this has been the Commons Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee on press standards, privacy and libel which heard submissions from both sides of the argument but which in large part seemed to have already adopted a similar view to that of the media.

Then there’s the Oxford University report that was funded by Associated Newspapers (the publishers of titles such as the Daily Mail, Evening Standard and London Lite) and based on questions prepared by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, a firm acting mostly for defendants. The report compared.......[view the full article here].

This article appeared in the online Solicitor's Journal in March 2009