Assessment of damages

The Gleaner Co Ltd and another v Abrahams PC TLR 22 July

Three ways of giving the jury guidance on the amount of the award of libel damages have been canvassed in recent English authorities. First, to remind the jury of the purchasing power of given capital sums as recommended in Sutcliffe v Pressdam Ltd [1991] 1 QB 151. Second, to suggest a comparison with awards in other libel cases. In Ransten v Minor Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd [1994] QB 670 the Court of Appeal held that although juries should not be told about awards made by other juries, they could be referred to awards substituted by the Court of Appeal in the exercise of its power under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. A third source of guidance is to make a comparison with awards of general damages in personal injuries cases. Since John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586. English juries have regularly been told to have regard to awards of general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury actions. Such figures were themselves conventional and under the current scale fixed by the Court of Appeal there was a maximum of £200,000 for the most catastrophic injuries. As a result, there was now a ceiling of £200,000 for compensatory damages in libel cases. However, the question whether, in giving juries guidance on the assessment of libel damages, comparisons should be made with awards of general damages in personal injury claims was one of policy. Without expressing any view on the current practice in England, their Lordships considered that the matter was open to legitimate differences of opinion. No question of legal principle was involved, and their Lordships were unwilling to say that the Jamaican Court of Appeal was wrong in not limiting libel damages by reference to a comparable personal injuries award.