Events | 2010.02.08
Motown tribute case to test UK libel law
Media organisations hope judgment will clear away tangle of legal complexities around defence of fair comment
It began as an obscure, if heartfelt, legal squabble between a Motown covers band popular on the cruise ship circuit and their Cambridgeshire-based booking agents. But now a case originating from a disputed engagement at an Italian restaurant in Leeds could bring about significant easing of the UK\'s famously tough libel laws.
The row between the Gillettes – a soul vocal trio – and 1311 Events is to be examined by the UK supreme court because it hinges on interpretations of a key defence in defamation trials: that of fair comment.
It will be the first study of the issue by the country\'s highest legal authority since the law lords looked into it almost 20 years ago. Media organisations hope it will clear away a tangle of legal complexities around a defence which many claim has become increasingly difficult to mount in recent years: that an opinion is not libellous if it is based on fact, is in the public interest and is levelled without malice.
The wrangling dates back to New Year\'s Eve 2006, when the Gillettes, whose regular clients include cruise lines, holiday parks and corporate firms, were booked to play at Bibis restaurant . The venue liked them but, according to legal documents, thought their agent was "a total tosser" and booked the trio directly for another date a few months later.
Jason Spiller, the owner of 1311, believed this broke a "re-engagement clause" in the band\'s contract which said repeat bookings had to go through the agency. He placed a notice on his company\'s website saying it was no longer dealing with the Gillettes as they had told him "contracts hold no water in legal terms".
A band member, Craig Joseph, had sent 1311 an email to this effect, but it referred only to "your contract". The Gillettes sued for libel, saying the inference that they routinely ignored contracts was defamatory and had cost them bookings.
Lawyers acting for 1311 planned a defence based on justification – that the website comments were essentially true and fair comment. But in May last year, shortly before the trial, the band successfully applied to the high court to get both of these defences struck out. An appeal in October saw this judgement reversed, but a new objection by the Gillettes\' legal team saw the fair comment defence removed.
David Price, acting for Spiller and 1311, said the supreme court case highlighted arguments over whether fair comment, intended to guarantee freedom of expression, had become undermined by complex rules, particularly the extent to which a piece of comment had to specifically spell out the background facts:
"They supreme court clearly isn\'t taking on this case because of what it\'s about. They\'re taking it because they believe the principles are really important and it could be said that fair comment is becoming too difficult," he said. "The argument is that English law has become incredibly restrictive in this area, thereby inhibiting people from proper comment."
The issue as it relates to the press was illustrated late last year when a high court judge struck out a fair comment defence by the Daily Telegraph over a book review by the writer Lynn Barber. Sir Charles Grey said Barber\'s disapproving comments about the journalistic practices of Dr Sarah Thornton, author of Seven Days in the Art World, could only stand as fair comment if supported by more evidence.
The justice secretary, Jack Straw, has appointed a series of senior lawyers, newspaper executives and scientists to a panel which will consider changes to the libel laws. Straw said one of the issues to be examined would be whether current law was having a "chilling effect" on freedom of expression.
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/07/motown-case-test-uk-libel-law
