DEFAMATION
JonBenet Ramsey, the child pageant
star who was six when she was killed,
remains one of America’s most notorious unsolved murders. The network
recently aired a documentary in the
US in which a team of experts concluded it was most likely that Burke
Ramsey had killed his sister after a
row over a midnight snack, and that
the pair’s parents covered up the
crime. Mr Ramsey’s lawyer said the
documentary contained ‘lies, misrepresentations, distortions, and omissions’. Mr Ramsey and his parents
have long denied any involvement in
JonBenet’s murder. JonBenet’s mother Patsy died of cancer in 2006.
Rebel Wilson faces
defamation suit after
mistaken identity
n Rebel Wilson is facing a defamation claim in her native Australia
after tweeting allegations about the
wrong journalist. Wilson tweeted
to and about House and Garden senior features editor Elizabeth Wilson,
when her comments were aimed at
freelancer Lizzie Wilson. The tweets
criticised the journalist for ‘harassing’ her 86-year-old grandmother,
called her ‘total scum’, and included
a photograph of (the wrong) Elizabeth Wilson. Elizabeth Wilson is
now suing for damages over online
abuse she subsequently received and
what she says is damage to her career. Rebel Wilson is defending the
claim, saying only a small portion
of her Twitter followers are based
in Australia and pointing out that
the tweets were removed after three
hours. The Lizzie Wilson who was
the real target of Rebel Wilson’s ire
has denied acting unprofessionally.
Restaurateur wins
damages but pays costs
n Khalid Undre, owner of a vegetarian restaurant, was awarded £9,000
in libel damages, but faces having to
22 | zoom-in Winter 2016
OOPS: REBEL WILSON
pay almost ten times that in costs.
The claim was brought against the
London Borough of Harrow over a
press release about his conviction for
animal cruelty offences. We last reported on this case in the Autumn
issue of zoom-in, when the restaurant’s claim was struck out as it had
not proved the press release caused
it serious financial loss – the threshold now set by section 1(2) Defamation Act 2013.
Mr Undre had been convicted of
animal cruelty offences relating to
cows he owned. However, the press
release issued by the London Borough of Harrow incorrectly stated
that the conviction related to offences that had caused the death of cows.
The Defendant, London Borough,
made an offer of amends (a procedure
where a defendant in a libel claim ac-
cepts they got something wrong), so
all that remained for the court to decide was the level of damages.
The Court awarded Mr Undre
£9,000. However, the Borough
had made an offer to pay £10,000
in damages in March 2016, so Mr
Undre was ordered to pay costs
from that date – estimated to be
around £80,000.
This is a lesson in the importance of offers of settlement, known
as ‘Part 36 offers’. If a claimant fails
to beat the offer, they will have to
pay the legal costs from that date
on. This can provide a strong protection to a defendant who either
knows they have made a mistake, is
concerned about losing the libel action, or simply wants to take a commercial approach and mitigate the
risks of litigation.