All Sections

View and post jobs in journalism
  • Platforms
  • Publishers
  • Comment/Analysis
  • Editor's Pick
  • Interviews
  • News
    • Broadcast Journalism
    • Digital Journalism
    • Magazines
    • Media Law
    • National Newspapers
    • People
      • Appointments
      • Obituaries
    • Regional Newspapers
  • Press Gazette Podcast
  • British Journalism Awards
  • Press Gazette Email Newsletter

In the news

  • Platforms
  • Publishers
  • Interviews
  • Marketing
  • Editorial standards
  • About/Contacts
  • Advertise/Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
Close
[mashshare]
Skip to content
  • Editorial standards
  • About/Contacts
  • Advertise/Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
All sections

Search

Search pressgazette.co.uk

Close

Press Gazette

Subscribe to our email newsletter Journalism email newsletter
  • News
  • Comment
  • Data
  • Platforms
  • Publishers
  • Marketing
  • Awards
  • Jobs
  • Partners

Menu

  • Platforms
  • Publishers
  • Interviews
  • National Newspapers
  • Regional Newspapers
  • Digital Journalism
  • Broadcast Journalism
  • Media Law
  • Magazines
  • Wires and Agencies
  • Obituaries
  • News
  • Comment/Analysis
  • Jobs
  • British Journalism Awards

In the news

  • Platforms
  • Publishers
  • Interviews
  • Marketing
Close
BBC's Laura Kuenssberg 'had personal protection on campaign trail after online threats from Corbynites', says Charles Moore
Mail Online breached privacy of Prince Harry with long lens photos taken of him on private Jamaican beach
July 14, 2017
  • Comment/Analysis
  •    
  • Media Law
  •    
  • News
  •    

Impress-brokered libel payout in Rice versus Byline leaves neither side happy and shows drawback for publishers of arbitration

By Dominic Ponsford Twitter

Share this

  • Tweet
  • Share 0
  • Reddit
Comments
6

The first libel arbitration settlement brokered by press regulator Impress has left neither side happy and set a precedent which may alarm other publishers.

At one level, Byline Media can count itself lucky that the claim from freelance journalist Dennis Rice over two allegedly defamatory tweets was settled by arbitration.

Timeline

  • March 22, 2019

    Byline team to rebrand and launch print title for subscribers in telling stories others 'have ignored'

  • September 13, 2018

    Impress dismisses complaint by child sex abuse victim named without consent in Byline article

  • June 12, 2018

    Byline Media and journalist Peter Jukes pursue damages and apology after hacking allegations by Brexit campaigners

A similar claim by Jack Monroe against Katie Hopkins over defamatory comments made on Twitter resulted in a damages payout of £24,000 and costs of £300,000 for the Mail Online columist when it was settled at the High Court.

Byline was asked to pay only £2,500 over the one tweet that was found to be defamatory and the £3,500 arbitration costs bill is being picked up by Impress.

Low-cost arbitration is something which all the members of Impress have to sign up to and is obligatory under the Royal Charter on press regulation.

The main press regulator, IPSO, could be forced to set up a similar scheme later this year depending on the outcome of the government consultation looking at Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act.

Publishers fear low-cost arbitration because they see it as as opening the door to a host of new libel and privacy claims which they wouldn’t otherwise have had to face.

The Rice claim certainly appears to suggest that this could be the case.

He contacted Impress to complain about two Twitter messages posted by Byline on 6 March 2017.

They said: ““High on #blaggingscandal PI Steve Whittamore’s top contact list – AFTER charging – is @Dennisricemedia’s phone number and email”.

And: “If anyone else remembers @Dennisricemedia tabloid trolling #Leveson witnesses and @Byline Media journos we have new evidence might explain”.

He was initially looking to Impress to take up his complaint, but they informed him that he could – if he wished – used their free libel arbitration scheme. The arbitrator operates independently of Impress.

Rice says he never would have sued otherwise because of the high cost, but as the scheme was free he decided to go through this channel.

I understand Rice is unhappy with the result because he still doesn’t have an apology and there was no order to take the tweets down.

Byline has said that it does not agree with the arbitrator’s decision and is seeking to appeal it.

Other publishers looking on will fear that having an arbitration scheme which is free for claimants would open them up to many more such claims.

For a local newspaper publisher, £2,500 damages plus £3,500 to pay for the cost of the arbitration (which would normally be paid by the publisher) would be a significant expense.

The big lesson for me of the story is that in cases such as this (and the Hopkins one) the publisher is far better to apologise and retract swiftly if they have overstepped the mark rather than stubbornly fight a risky libel case.

SIGN UP HERE FOR

MEDIA MONITOR

Press Gazette's weekly email providing strategic insight into the future of the media

Subscribe

Related Stories

  • Byline Media facing legal action from journalist for recovery of £2,500 libel damages awarded by Impress arbitrator
  • Byline Media ordered to pay journalist Dennis Rice £2,500 under first libel arbitration from regulator Impress
  • More than 5,000 Hacked Off supporters urge Government to enact Section 40 as consultation deadline looms
  • Tesla libel appeal against Top Gear over electric car review fails

Explore these topics

  • Byline
  • Impress
Browse, search and add journalism jobs
Comments

6 thoughts on “Impress-brokered libel payout in Rice versus Byline leaves neither side happy and shows drawback for publishers of arbitration”

  1. Ciaran Goggins says:
    July 14, 2017 at 3:13 pm

    Joe Poulton?

    Reply
  2. Richard Bartholomew says:
    July 14, 2017 at 4:18 pm

    The full adjudication document on the IMPRESS website makes for odd reading. It does not explain why Tweet 2 was untrue (or even unproven), despite the material documented in Paragraph 23 and the evidence referred to in Paragraph 30. Indeed, it doesn’t actually pronounce on Tweet 2’s truthfulness either way, just on whether it harmed the complainant’s reputation.

    In Monroe vs Hopkins, Hopkins knew that she had mistaken Monroe for someone else, and she therefore never offered truth as a defence. Instead, the case revolved around whether there had been harm to reputation.

    It looks to me that the arbitrator got so caught up in using that case as his guide that he failed to consider the very different circumstances of the current case, where the defendant presented supporting materials that have not been taken into consideration.

    Reply
1 2 3

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More content

Post a job on Press Gazette

Most Popular

  1. GB News latest signings, schedule and where to watch: In-depth briefing
  2. Reach pay cut Reach settles with staff who lodged claim over 10% Covid pay cut
  3. Telegraph newsroom The death of the newsroom means the end of journalism as we know it
  4. Mental health journalists Call for journalists to receive 'emotional flak jackets' against worsening online abuse
  5. Epoch Times homepage Top 50 largest news websites in the world: Surge in traffic to Epoch Times and other right-wing sites

Latest Jobs

  • Media Officer, Deliberate PR
  • CROPPED New Statesman Media Group logo New Statesman podcast producer
  • Senior Data Journalist/Data Journalist, Capital.com
Mail Online breached privacy of Prince Harry with long lens photos taken of him on private Jamaican beach

© copyright 2021 Press Gazette Ltd. Made in Taiwan.