Rather than exploring whether Cadwalladr really did win, many decided to attack the courts. ) To her supporters, it is incongruous that Cadwalladr should apparently be the winner of the litigation, proving her allegations against Banks, and yet have to pay damages and costs. (Indeed, even Labour MP Alex Cunningham, the Shadow Minister for Courts and Sentencing wrote in a now deleted tweet that “she won - it was good journalism ”. Previous instances of lawful publication do nothing to change that.Ĭadwalladr abandoned a truth defence on 11 Nov ember 2 020 and sent an apologyįrom those statements, Cadwalladr’s supporters can perhaps be forgiven for their mistaken belief that Cadwalladr had met with success. The important fact is that there was defamation for which Cadwalladr was liable. The talk was lawful ”.Ĭadwalladr has said that the majority of views of the TED Talk were legal, bringing to mind Pool Supervisor Keith Mandemant from The Day Today : “In 1975, no-one died. Earlier this year, she said, “everything I did, my journalistic processes, the public interest of my journalism, the reporting of Bank’s Kremlin links has been categorically upheld by this judgment” and that “I won the entirety of the main libel claim. She has stated elsewhere that the judgment has “huge ramification s” for UK journalism, calling on TED Talks (where the defamatory statements appeared) and the Guardian and Observer (where they did not) for support. Cadwalladr says that the facts regarding Bank s’ relationship with Russians is “beyond dispute” following the High Court judgment. In a 2 017 judgment, Jack Monroe was awarded £24,000 in damages regarding two tweets by Katie Hopkins.Ĭadwalladr has now written that the Cost Order marked a “dark day” for public interest journalism. He received an award of damages of £30,000 in a 2 019 judgment. The Labour MP Richard Burgon successfully brought a claim in respect of an article, which had the meaning that he “joined a band which as he knew took great pleasure in using Nazi symbol s”. The damages, however, are not dissimilar to those awarded elsewhere. To further underline the reality of the case’s outcome, the Court of Appeal in its Costs Order reasons made it perfectly clear that the “Claimant was the successful party on the appeal and overall ”.Ī few desperate Cadwalladr supporters have derided the £35,000 sum in damages, as if the case might as well have been a loss. For those who insisted that Cadwalladr was the real winner, the damages and costs provide a seemingly insurmountable argument against their position. Bank s’ success on the final ground was all that was needed to establish liability. That contention failed to take into account the fact that, whilst Cadwalladr had staged a successful defence against Bank s’ claim in the High Court, she was ultimately liable for defamation following the Court of Appeal judgment (as I explained in a previous article for The Critic ). Cadwalladr had apparently won a 2 -1 victory, as if the appeal were a sort of football match. The Costs Order from the Court of Appeal therefore makes it unequivocal, if it was not already: Cadwalladr will be writing the (metaphorical) cheque at the end of the case.Ī common line of argument following the Court of Appeal judgment was that Banks was the loser, since he had only succeeded on one of his three grounds of appeal. She is to repay the costs that were paid to her following Steyn J’s High Court judgment and to pay one third of Bank s’ costs in the Court of Appeal. Cadwalladr, after the Court of Appeal allowed Bank s’ appeal in Banks v Cadwalladr, is now to pay £35,000 in damages and 6 0 per cent of Bank s’ costs in the High Court. Whilst several supporters maintained that Cadwalladr had been vindicated after Banks brought a defamation claim against her, it is evident that she is indeed the unsuccessful party. ” Carole Cadwalladr is a journalist who made several allegations against Arron Banks and his supposed connections to the Russian Government in relation to his financial support of the Brexit referendum Leave.EU campaign. In Day v Day, Ward LJ said, in respect of litigation, “The question of who is the unsuccessful party can easily be determined by deciding who has to write the cheque at the end of the case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |