Anyone know the name of this case MEDIA LAW/LIBEL

padser

I know there was a libel case where an appelant court ruled that the damages awarded were too high and sent the case back for re trial and the new jury awarded even higher damages.

Google isnt helping me, probably because I dont have enough info,

Anyone know the name of the case???

Robbo

Dennis O'Brien -v- The Star?

Gobán Saor

Close. Denis O'Brien v the Mirror Group

johnnyskeleton

Brilliant case. The jury gave something like 250k, the supreme court (with a nod to the ECHR) said it's too excessive, and then a second jury, sometime towards the end of last year, gave him c. 750k.

The question now is, can the supreme court really overturn their decision again? Or will the procedure for defamation cases be radically altered?

maidhc

It makes me sick, especially when catastrophic injuries cases are capped at a fraction of that.

I have no love of the Mirror or the dire shower of idiots who call themselves journalists we have in this country, but what is it with these awards? I reckon if you defame someone the best remedy is to run them down with your car ASAP.

johnnyskeleton

In an ideal world, the courts would impose a level of damages high enough to punish the tortfeasor, and payout damages high enough to compensate the various plaintiffs.

But the situation is that if you are slightly hurt due to the government's inadvertence, you have hit the jackpot, and if you are seriously injured by someone with very little money it's tough luck.

But the scenario is that whatever level of damages we think they should impose, the reality is that juries decide the award, not based on what is normally considered adequate compensation, but what they feel is appropriate. It could be argued that from a non-lawyers point of view that defamation damages in such cases are about right, but that damages in PI cases are much lower than they should be

padser

maidhc wrote:

It makes me sick, especially when catastrophic injuries cases are capped at a fraction of that.

I have no love of the Mirror or the dire shower of idiots who call themselves journalists we have in this country, but what is it with these awards? I reckon if you defame someone the best remedy is to run them down with your car ASAP.

Yeah I'm doing an essay at the moment on the role of the jury in defamation and its just mental. Its only this side of the Atlantic that we seem incapable of either giving the jury proper instructions or overturning their perverse verdicts.

In america the average payout is about 80% lower then the initial jury award. This is due to the appelant court stepping in and downsizing the award (and also i guess settlements after awards because people know that unrealistic jury awards wouldn't be upheld). Its not a perfect system either, but its a hell of a lot fairer then the system here which is effectively a lotttery.

Gobán Saor

It's a bit odd that defamation awards can be so high compared to other cases. A recent very striking case was an award of €450,000 for Alan O'Gorman who had his entire stomach surgically unnecessarily removed at the age of 22 following an incorrect diagnosis.

The most horrific deframation imaginable falls far short of the distress, pain and suffering in a serious personal injuries case.

sh_o

Gob&#225 wrote: »

A recent very striking case was an award of €450,000 for Alan O'Gorman who had his entire stomach surgically unnecessarily removed at the age of 22 following an incorrect diagnosis.

Which I understand included loss of earnings and future medical expenses.

johnnyskeleton

Gob&#225 wrote: »

It's a bit odd that defamation awards can be so high compared to other cases. A recent very striking case was an award of €450,000 for Alan O'Gorman who had his entire stomach surgically unnecessarily removed at the age of 22 following an incorrect diagnosis.

The most horrific deframation imaginable falls far short of the distress, pain and suffering in a serious personal injuries case.

It is strange if you consider the logical extension that one person's reputation is valued higher than another person's life/wellbeing. On the other hand, it is not really comparing like with like, and if a person's business reputation is damaged to the extent that he loses X amount, that is the appropriate compensation and it should not be compared to the amount it would take to compensate another person. The principle is that the court will compensate the specific plaintiff rather than based on a general scale.

Also, if juries in defamation/trespass cases are awarding much higher damages than judges sitting alone for negligence/med neg et, the question could equally be why are judge's awards for medical negligence so low?