Amid the UN Committee on Human Rights’ recent criticism of our claimant-friendly libel laws, it is reassuring to see judges taking a robust line against dubious claims.

Take Mr Justice Eady’s decision in Tesco Stores Ltd v Guardian News & Media Ltd.

p>Tesco brought libel and malicious falsehood claims against The Guardian and its editor over reports about alleged (but strenuously denied) corporation tax avoidance.

The defendants subsequently accepted the reports were wrong, and made an Offer of Amends in relation to the libel – that is, they would make a suitable correction and apology, and pay reasonable damages and costs.

Tesco argued that irrespective of this Offer of Amends (which constitutes a defence to a libel claim), it was still free to pursue its malicious falsehood claim to prove malice.

But Eady J. imposed a ‘stay’ on the malicious falsehood claim as it had no “substantive or legitimate purpose”.

He said the court must focus on the “real issues between the parties” – which here concerned the adequate vindication of Tesco’s reputation via the statutory Offer of Amends procedure.

The judge said: “Why should the court not prevent its processes being diverted to allow the pursuit of pointless objectives?

“There is no right to plead a cause of action just because it exists.

“The court is there to do justice…..Litigation is no longer intended to be regarded as a game for lawyers; it is a means provided by the state of achieving justice for the parties.”

Coroners’ Courts, in contrast, could become less media-friendly if proposals currently in the Counter-Terrorism Bill become law.

Under the Bill, which has passed through the House of Commons, it would be possible to hold an inquest in secret without a jury if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it will involve the consideration of material that “should not be made public in the interests of national security, in the interests of the relationship between the UK and another country, or otherwise in the public interest”.

The Ministry of Justice has said: “Families can have absolute confidence in the conclusion the Coroner reaches because the Coroner will have had access to all the evidence.”

But such blind faith may not reassure the relatives of dead soldiers or prison inmates.

The Attorney-General’s office is apparently “considering the issues raised” by an Old Bailey trial which the judge had to abort after it emerged a juror had searched the internet about the defendant and told a fellow-juror about another criminal charge he faced.

Judge David Paget QC said it was becoming increasingly difficult to conduct trials without juries being prejudiced by internet content.

It has been an expensive summer in the libel courts for those facing libel claims by sports personalities.

Boxing promoter Frank Warren has reportedly accepted £115,000 in damages, plus costs believed to run to £2m, from publisher Random House.

It is the settlement of his long libel fight over an autobiography of boxer Ricky Hatton which contained defamatory allegations about Warren.

Footballer Andy Cole has secured an apology, substantial damages, and costs, from Express Newspapers over articles that falsely said he had assaulted his wife.

And football agent Anthony McGill obtained an apology, substantial damages and costs from the publisher of a transfer gossip website that carried an untrue story suggesting he was involved in ‘tapping up’ a Celtic player to join Aston Villa, in breach of regulatory rules.

Solicitor Nigel Hanson is a member of Foot Anstey’s media team.
To contact Nigel telephone 0800 0731 411 or e-mail [email protected].