Jameel v Wall Street Journal [2006] UKHL 44

The Wall Street Journal published an article stating that Saudi authorities were monitoring bank accounts of prominent Saudi businesses, including the Jameel group, at the request of US law enforcement to prevent terrorist funding. The claimants sued for libel. The House of Lords allowed the appeal, holding that the publication was protected by Reynolds privilege as responsible journalism on a matter of genuine public interest.

Facts

On 6 February 2002, the Wall Street Journal Europe published an article by James Dorsey stating that the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority (SAMA) was monitoring bank accounts of prominent Saudi businessmen, including the Abdul Latif Jameel Group, at the request of US law enforcement agencies to prevent funds reaching terrorist organisations. The article was published following the September 11 2001 attacks, when tracing terrorist funding was of high international importance. The respondents, Mr Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel (a prominent Saudi businessman) and Abdul Latif Jameel Company Ltd, brought defamation proceedings.

The Article’s Publication

The journalist Mr Dorsey relied on multiple sources in Saudi Arabia. Mr Glenn Simpson in Washington obtained confirmation from the US Treasury using an established code whereby a refusal to deny a story constituted confirmation. The newspaper sought comment from the Jameel group but was asked to delay publication for 24 hours to allow Mr Jameel to respond. The newspaper declined and published stating the group could not be reached for comment.

Issues

Two principal issues arose:

1. Presumption of Damage

Whether a trading corporation should be required to plead and prove special damage to succeed in a libel action.

2. Reynolds Privilege

Whether the newspaper was entitled to the defence of qualified privilege for responsible journalism on matters of public interest, as established in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd.

Judgment

On the Damage Issue

The majority held that trading corporations should not be required to prove special damage. Lord Bingham emphasised that the good name of a company is a thing of value which the law should protect. Lord Hope noted that reputation is something that in itself has a value which the law enables companies to protect.

On Reynolds Privilege

The House unanimously allowed the appeal on this ground. Lord Hoffmann criticised the trial judge’s approach as too rigid and contrary to the liberalising intention of Reynolds. He stated that the Reynolds defence exists where the subject matter is of public interest and the steps taken to gather and publish the information were responsible and fair.

Lord Nicholls’ ten factors in Reynolds were intended as pointers, not hurdles. Lord Hoffmann explained that weight should be given to editorial judgment and that the standard of responsible journalism must be applied practically and flexibly.

Lord Scott stated that the information disclosed was of high importance and worldwide public interest, and that the criterion of responsible journalism was satisfied.

Implications

This decision significantly clarified and strengthened the Reynolds defence for responsible journalism. It confirmed that:

• Reynolds privilege should be applied flexibly, not as a series of rigid tests
• The defence protects publication in the public interest where responsible journalism standards are met
• Editorial judgment should be respected
• The failure to delay publication for comment is not necessarily fatal to the defence
• Trading corporations may sue for libel without proving special damage, though damages should be modest where no financial loss is shown

The case represents an important rebalancing of the law of defamation in favour of press freedom when reporting on matters of genuine public interest.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The newspaper's Reynolds privilege defence succeeded. The action was dismissed.

Source: Jameel v Wall Street Journal [2006] UKHL 44