An Icelandic professor has emerged as the latest victim of “libel tourism” in
Britain after he was sued in the High Court by a wealthy compatriot for a
posting on a website based in Iceland.
Hannes Gissurarson was initially bemused when a British diplomat, acting as an
envoy of the court, turned up at his door in Reykjavik to serve him with a
writ.
The professor of political science was told that judges in London would
adjudicate on whether his comments on the University of Iceland’s website
were defamatory. During the ensuing five-year legal battle, Gissurarson was
forced to sell his home and faced legal costs of more than £150,000.
His case — which was revealed in a High Court judgment last month — confirms
London’s role as the libel capital of the world and the readiness of its
courts to rule on cases with scant connection to the UK. Plaintiffs need
only prove that they have a reputation to defend in Britain and that the
defamatory material was circulated here, even if only over the internet, to
sue. They do not have to be resident here and the publication or individual
they are suing need have only tenuous connections with the UK.
Recent and pending libel cases in the London courts include:
- A Palestinian politician who is suing the Qatar-based television network
Al-Jazeera for a broadcast in Arabic;
- A Greek citizen who has launched proceedings against The New York Times;
- A political exile from Tunisia who sued the German newspaper Die Zeit.
Denis MacShane, the Labour MP, said: “The libel system is an international
scandal which shames Britain and makes a mockery of the idea that Britain is
a protector of core democratic freedoms. It’s hard to believe that even the
Foreign Office is now acting to promote London as a centre of libel tourism.”
Wealthy claimants favour the London courts because Britain’s draconian libel
laws make it easier to win than in jurisdictions such as America, which put
greater emphasis on freedom of speech. The high reputation of British
justice also means a ruling can be used worldwide as evidence of a
vindicated reputation.
The reality is that legal fees are so high that most defendants want to settle
as quickly as possible, rather than fight a case on its merits.
Gissurarson gave a speech to a group of journalists in Iceland in 1999 in
which he made disparaging remarks about an Icelandic businessman. Extracts
of his talk in English were put on the University of Iceland’s website. The
businessman, Jon Olafsson, who moved to England in 2003, filed a claim
against Gissurarson in the High Court, alleging that his reputation in
Britain had been harmed.
Simon Minshull, then the deputy head of mission and consul at the British
embassy in Iceland, was dispatched to serve papers on Gissurarson in
September 2004. Damages for £55,000 were awarded against Gissurarson, but he
fought back, successfully claiming that the libel writ was invalid because
Minshull had not obtained his signature when serving the papers.
The case descended into a costly legal farce as Olafsson in turn sued the
Foreign Office for this apparent blunder. He won his case last month, with
the department being ordered to pay more than £90,000 compensation to
Olafsson and the legal bill for the entire case, which could exceed
£300,000.
Heimir Orn Herbertsson, Gissurarson’s lawyer, said: “The allegations only ever
appeared on a website in Iceland. Professor Gissurarson could never afford
to defend this case on its merits because of the huge legal costs in
Britain.”
In another case, the New York-based College Art Association, which publishes
Art Journal, was threatened with a British libel action by an Israeli
scholar who was the subject of a critical review by an academic from
Columbia University, which is in Manhattan.
The association reportedly paid the academic, Gannit Ankori, $75,000 (£45,000)
in damages, thus avoiding a costly trial in London.
John Mardas, a Greek citizen and former associate of the Beatles, is fighting
a case in the British courts against The New York Times and the
International Herald Tribune over articles that he claims falsely
represented him as a charlatan.
Just 31 people read the relevant articles on the internet in England. The New
York Times only sold 177 copies of its newspaper with the disputed article
in England, while it was not published in the International Herald Tribune
in this country, according to the defendants.
Despite this meagre readership, Mr Justice Eady, the libel judge, gave the
go-ahead on appeal for a case which could rack up millions of pounds in
costs. He said Mardas, who was known as “Magic Alex” in the 1960s, had a
reputation to defend in Britain, even though he lives in Greece. Mardas is
not taking action against the papers in the United States.
Another case to be heard before the High Court involves Mohammed Dahlan, a
Palestinian politician, who claims he was libelled on a political debate
programme on Al-Jazeera. Dahlan says he has a reputation in Britain and the
discussion programme was recorded in London.
One of the biggest winners in recent years has been Rachid Ghannouchi, a
Tunisian opposition leader who has asylum in Britain. He successfully sued
the German newspaper Die Zeit and the Dubai-based television station
Al-Arabiya in London.
Another case involving Ghannouchi highlights the huge costs of such cases.
Carter-Ruck, his lawyers, billed the unsuccessful defendant, a London-based
Arab newspaper, for £1.3m in fees, including a “success” fee of £500,000,
with £111,000 costs for translation from Arabic.
An Oxford University report published last year found libel court costs are
140 times higher in Britain than the rest of Europe. Boris Berezovsky, the
Russian oligarch, helped pave the way for wealthy foreigners to attack
critical publication through the London courts when he successfully sued the
American magazine Forbes in 1997, despite its slim circulation in Britain.
Following Beresovsky’s success, foreign businessmen and celebrities were
soon trekking to London law firms to restore or even rehabilitate their
reputations.
Mark Stephens, the media lawyer who has acted for the defendant in many libel
actions, said human rights and anti-corruption organisations were now
routinely threatened with London libel actions. He said: “NGOs
[non-governmental organisations] and reporting organisations know even if
they are right they may still be sued and the cost of defending themselves
will be huge. We have threats against just about every reputable
organisation you can think of, from Human Rights Watch to Greenpeace.”
There are now calls for court costs to be curbed, strict controls on libel
tourism and a wider public interest defence for publications.
Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censorship, which has been reviewing the
libel laws with English Pen, which promotes literature and human rights,
said: “The libel courts are a casino and costs must be capped to ensure they
are no longer used to threaten free speech.”
How to cut costs
Lord Justice Jackson, who is conducting a government review of the high costs
of civil actions, is being urged to recommend fast-track schemes to deal
with libel cases, writes Jon Ungoed-Thomas.
He is looking at ways of cutting costs, which can dwarf the amount of damages
paid.
Lawyers believe fast-tracking could reduce costs hugely in some cases. They
say such a scheme would give a defendant the opportunity to make an “offer
of amends” before costs spiralled out of control.
The parliamentary culture, media and sport select committee has also heard
evidence on so-called libel tourism and the prohibitive costs of fighting a
libel action in the British courts. It is expected to make recommendations
to ensure the courts are not used to quash public interest investigations by
non-governmental organisations and the media.
Some American states are already enacting laws that protect their citizens
against British libel laws. John Whittingdale, chairman of the committee,
said: “We ought to be very concerned when the Americans are passing laws
specifically to address what they see as an injustice perpetrated by the
British courts.”
Your Comments
Order By: