the high-price of vindication for online libel
The High Court's recent decision in a defamation claim brought
by Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Al-Amoudi against Mr Elias Kifle, the
publisher and editor in chief of an online new service, Ethiopian
Review, illustrates the appetite of the court to award high damages
as vindication for a serious online libel.
Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Al-Amoudi is regularly listed amongst
the richest men in the world, he has business interests across the
world including London, Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia. Elias Kifle
alleged, amongst other things, that Mr Al-Amoudi had imposed
extraordinary cruelty towards one of his daughters and that he had
funded international terrorism. Mr Al-Amoudi had received
vindication in 2006 for the latter allegation by having an
statement read out in open court stating that the allegation was
false.
However, as a result of Mr Kifle's false and very serious
allegations, Mr Al-Amoudi suffered huge reputational damage and
distress. Further, he had a clear reputation to protect in this
country where there was an expatriate Ethiopian community of about
50,000.
Vindication was the most important consideration for Mr Al-
Amoudi given that he had already brought proceedings in relation to
some of the allegations and this was reflected in the high award of
damages made by the court in the sum of £175.000. In determining
the level of damages, the court also took into account the
aggravating behaviour of Mr Kifle when Mr Al- Amoudi first
complained about the article. Mr Kifle was uncooperative and
abusive to Mr Al- Amoudi and his lawyers, furthering the harm
caused. In addition, Mr Kifle was also ordered to pay Mr
Al-Amoudi's legal costs on an indemnity basis.
comment
The case is a useful reminder of the court's willingness to
award very high damages in appropriate cases where it is felt that
this is the only away to truly allow the injured party vindication
of their reputation. Further damages are likely to be high in the
case of online libel because publication is wide.
