The long running cases of Miller v Associated Newspapers finally concluded on 31 October 2014, more than 6 years after publication of the article complained of, when the Supreme Court dismiissed the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal on the ground that it did not raise a point of law of general importance.
The case concerned an article published on the front page of the Daily Mail on 2 October 2008 under the headline “Met Boss in new ‘Cash for friend’ storm“. The action was commenced on 29 September 2009 and the Particulars of Claim were served on 26 November 2009.
The case first came before the courts on 18 March 2010 when Mr Justice Eady struck out one of the claimant’s pleaded meanings ([2010] EWHC 700 (QB)). The Defence was served on 12 July 2010. The substantive defence relied on was justification. On 14 July 2011 the parties agreed to trial by judge alone.
In November 2011 Mr Justice Tugendhat decided that ([2011] EWHC 2677 (QB)) the words complained of meant that
“there were (at the date of publication) reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr Miller was a willing beneficiary of improper conduct and cronyism because of his friendship with Sir Ian Blair in respect of the award of a number of Metropolitan Police Service contracts to Mr Miller’s company worth millions of pounds of public money”.
The case was tried by Mrs Justice Sharp on 21 to 25 May 2012 and on 21 December 2012 she gave judgment dismissing the defence of justification and awarding the claimant, Mr Miller, damages of £65,000 ([2012] EWHC 3721 (QB)).
The Daily Mail appealed to the Court of Appeal. Its appeal was dismissed on 24 January 2014 ([2014] EWCA Civ 39). The Daily Mail then sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The decision of 31 October 2014 dismissing that application – just over six years since the publication of the article complained of – is the final conclusion of this long drawn out case.
The claimant was represented by Simons Muirhead & Burton and the defendant by RPC LLP.
“The decision of 31 October 2014 dismissing that application […] is the final conclusion of this long drawn out case.”
Not if the Daily Mail takes their fight to Strasbourg, .. oh wait, is that likely?
No to Strasbourg. The Supreme Court is the end of the road for the Daily Mail. They have LOST.
Six years, around £3 million of costs, 11 judges involved.
I should know. I am the Andy Miller who beat them!
Andy Miller
No re Strasbourg. The Supreme Court is the end of the road for the Daily Mail.
They have LOST.
6 years, 3 courts, 11 Judges and £3 million of costs for the Daily Mail to pay.
I should know…I am the Andy Miller who beat them.
Andy Miller
Very well done to Andy Miller. It is really lovely to hear of justice being done to the Daily Mail. Let there be more cases against this horrible (news?!) paper.
Thank you, Roger.
In case you missed it, an article about me was published by the Guardian last Saturday. Find it at:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/14/daily-mail-faces-3m-bill-libel-battle-andy-miller
I had the privilege of being one of the guests at the premiere, last week, of the film The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies – the retired man who was vilified by many newspapers (including ‘Guess Which’!) for regarding a murder in Bristol. He won huge damages against many newspapers.
See the film detail at:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3429354/
This film is disgusting, tragic, wonderful and inspirational at the same time. Then, after the premiere, I met many other victims of press abuse. What we all have in common is this…whilst we are delighted and relieved that we have won, we are all determined to fight for a better British press, which requires, among other things, an independent regulator with real powers. We all want to help to ensure that there are fewer and fewer victims in the future.
And if anyone cries out “But what about the freedom of the press?!”… I say: ‘Yes. It is indeed crucial. But never forget that whilst the press has a right to publish information, it has no right to publish disinformation.”
Andy Miller