GUR v Avrupa Newspaper Ltd & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal by the defendants, with permission granted by Ward LJ, against the assessment of damages in a libel action. On 24 May 2007, a deputy judge in the High Court assessed damages of £85,000 in respect of libels published in Turkish in three newspaper articles in a publication called Avrupa. Avrupa is a Turkish language newspaper published in this country by the first defendant and edited by the second defendant. Proceedings were served on 18 August 2006, and on 24 January 2007, judgment in default of defence was entered by Underhill J with an order for assessment of damages.

The claimant has been resident in this country for over thirty years, is a prominent member of the British Turkish community, known for charitable work and leadership roles including chairmanship of the Turkish-British Chamber of Commerce and Industry and managing director of a group of companies. The libels concerned allegations that the claimant attempted to defraud Turkish authorities in relation to a building project and improperly obtained funds from a charity. The defendants did not deny or justify the libels.

The court considered the prominence of the libels, the community affected, the aggravating conduct of the defendants including defiance and lack of apology, and assessed damages accordingly.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the damages awarded for libel were excessive or disproportionate in light of comparable awards, including personal injury damages.
2. Whether the judge erred in failing to consider the defendants' income and resources in assessing damages, in light of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. Whether the defendants were denied a fair trial in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
4. Whether the judge wrongly referred to or relied on previous awards of damages in libel cases.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The damages awarded were excessive and disproportionate compared to personal injury awards and the legitimate aim of libel damages.
• The damages exceeded what a reasonable jury could award to compensate and restore reputation.
• The judge misdirected herself by not considering awards for personal injury and the defendants' financial means.
• The damages breached Article 10 of the Convention due to their substantial amount relative to the defendants' modest means.
• The judge erred by having regard to previous awards of damages by juries and courts.
• The judge failed to properly consider the European Court of Human Rights decision in Steel and Morris v United Kingdom regarding defendants' means.
• There were breaches of fair trial rights under Article 6, including late provision of evidence and the trial not restarting after the defendant's late arrival.

Respondent's Arguments

• The damages awarded were appropriate and within the notional ceiling for serious libels.
• The judge properly considered the relevant legal principles, including comparison with personal injury awards as a reasonableness check.
• There was no evidential basis to consider the defendants' financial means; assertions made were insufficient evidence.
• The defendants had a fair trial; no prejudice was caused by late evidence or the defendants' late arrival.
• Previous awards referred to were not relied upon by the judge in assessing damages.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Tierney v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 3275	Establishing a notional ceiling for libel damages at approximately £215,000 for the most serious libels.	The court accepted the ceiling as a benchmark and found the damages award of £85,000 within reasonable limits.
Heil v Rankin [2001] QB 272	Impact on personal injury awards relevant to scaling libel damages.	Referenced in context of scaling damages and comparison with personal injury awards.
Steel and Morris v United Kingdom [2005] EMLR 314	Whether defendants' means must be considered in fixing libel damages to ensure proportionality under Article 10 ECHR.	The court found no evidential basis to consider defendants’ means and held any change to established law must come from the House of Lords.
John v MGN Limited [1997] QB 586	Distinction between personal injury and libel damages; personal injury awards not directly equatable.	Cited to reject detailed pound-for-pound comparison while accepting general reference to personal injury awards.
Gleaner Company Ltd v Abrahams [2003] UKPC 55	Controversy over using personal injury awards as a benchmark in libel damages.	Used to support cautious approach to comparing libel damages with personal injury awards.
Rantzen v MGN [1994] QB 670	Changes to law requiring damages awards to be more controlled and predictable, especially regarding jury references to previous awards.	Explained the limited role of jury awards as precedents and the increasing importance of judge-made awards.
Kiam v MGN Limited [2003] QB 281	Guidance on avoiding direct comparisons with other awards and leaving figure guidance to judges.	Supported the court’s approach to rely on judge’s reasoned assessment rather than jury awards or direct comparisons.
Jones v Pollard [1997] EMLR 233	Principles for assessing libel damages including gravity, prominence, effect on feelings, mitigation, and vindication.	The deputy judge correctly applied these principles in assessing damages in this case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the deputy judge’s assessment of damages, affirming that damages in libel cases serve three objectives: vindication, compensation for reputational damage, and injury to feelings. The deputy judge applied a notional ceiling of £215,000 for the most serious libels, a figure grounded in precedent and comparison with personal injury awards as a reasonableness check.

The court rejected the appellants’ argument that the damages were excessive, noting the gravity and prominence of the libels, the affected community being that of which the claimant is a prominent member, and the aggravating conduct of the defendants, including defiance and lack of apology. The defendants’ assertions about limited financial means were unsubstantiated by evidence, and the court held that any change to the established principle that a defendant’s means are irrelevant to damages assessment must come from the House of Lords.

Regarding the fair trial complaint, the court found no prejudice resulting from late evidence or the defendant’s late arrival at trial and concluded the trial was conducted fairly. The court also clarified that while previous jury awards should generally be avoided as comparators, reasoned awards by judges may be referenced, but in this case, the deputy judge did not rely on such awards.

Overall, the court found the deputy judge applied correct legal principles, properly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors, and reached a reasonable damages figure.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The damages award of £85,000 was upheld as neither excessive nor disproportionate. The decision confirms adherence to established principles governing libel damages, including the application of a notional ceiling and the limited role of defendants’ means in the absence of evidence. The court reaffirmed the importance of reasoned judicial assessments over jury awards in libel damage calculations. No new precedent was established; the ruling primarily affirms the soundness of the deputy judge’s approach and damages assessment in this case.