High Court strikes out libel case against publicist who pitched story to Sunday Mirror

This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.

A libel claim against a publicity agent who pitched a story to the Sunday Mirror was struck out of the High Court on Monday.

Mr Justice Tugendhat struck out the claim in Hays plc v Hartley , a case in which the recruitment company pursued Jonathan Hartley for providing a discrimination claim story to the Sunday Mirror, published in 2009.

Hays Plc had already settled a libel action against the employees involved, before it reached trial. In the agreed public statement, the employees stated there was "no evidence to suggest that Hays Plc is an institutionally racist company."  Hays Plc did not take action against the Sunday Mirror. As reported by the The International Forum for Responsible Media (Inforrm) blog , the defendant, Hartley, argued that he had acted as a "messenger" in the process, and that because the claimant had suffered no damage, the claim was an "abuse of process".

In his judgment on Monday, however, Mr Justice Tugendhat said that Hays had "every right to pursue its legal rights, and to do so forcefully". But the judge said, the company had already achieved its objective in the action against the employees.

"[T]he fact that the Claimant acted reasonably in preserving its rights and suing the defendant, is not a reason why it should be entitled to continue pursuing the Defendant once it has become clear that it has achieved its objective in the action against the Employees," he ruled.

A spokesperson acting for Hartley's solicitor David Price, said that the case showed it was possible for freelancers and publicists, as well as publishers, to rely on the Reynolds Defence for journalism in the public interest .

It's "interesting" that Hays went after the employees and the publicist but not the Sunday Mirror "because it seems they wanted to suggest that there was no defence to libel for the publicist," said the spokesperson. "This judgment shows there is, that of the Reynolds defence." David Price told Journalism.co.uk that the ruling helped protect the flow of information to media.

Secondly, the case showed "that companies can bring libel actions but they're at risk of having them thrown out if they can't demonstrate reputational or financial damage," the spokesperson said. It is a "healthy step" that the principle of the Jameel v Dow Jones case (2005) is being used more widely, added David Price, referring to other recent cases, such as Mr Justice Eady's ruling over the Kaschke v Osler case .

"It has been a good week for libel defendants," the Inforrm blog commented. "This case is another example of the robust exercise of the "abuse" jurisdiction in libel cases and the way in which it can be used to dispose of "insubstantial" claims where no real reputational damage has been caused."

This article was amended on 19.05.10, to further clarify the legal technicalities of the case. The ruling can be found at this link.