UK: Media and Mediation: Libel

This is the second article to take up one theme offered by the responses to the Green Paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial law. The theme is a sector-by-sector analysis of where ADR, and mediation in particular, could be used more widely.

My view is that the level of awareness among clients of this alternative is very low and effective awareness amongst practitioners is limited. While they may be aware of all CPR requirements concerning ADR, there may be room to improve the practitioners perception of it and their ability to more clearly see where it could fit into the advice they give to a client and their management of a particular type of case.

I find that the attitude of many lawyers, even those who have looked into mediation, is that "it is no different to negotiation" and so they " do not need it". My response is that I would agree that cases might settle anyway - but that mediation may achieve it sooner, more economically and on terms that all parties are happy with.

It is not my position that mediation is a panacea that will bring together parties in every situation. I do believe it is possible to develop a more structured approach to the stereotypical situations which we encounter in libel and consider indicators which, when appearing together, suggest that mediation should be advanced as a strong alternative.

So, if mediation will work if x, y, and z feature in a particular dispute, what are these variables in libel?

What I wish to do here is to look at one or two contenders and present them against a range of typical libel case scenarios.

1 Time factors. From a defendant point of view, it is sometimes necessary to look into a justification defence even where it is not obviously available at the time the complaint is received. In other cases, and error may be so blatant that no further research is necessary.

2 Nature of Defendant. The focus of decision-making will vary. With a newspaper it is often concentrated with an editor who can be approached to issue instructions and reach decisions very quickly. In other organisations, the structure may be more diffuse and responsibility will move between various executives. In these latter cases, there may be increased value in mediation, as it provides the focus that is otherwise very difficult for the advising lawyer to orchestrate.

A Typology

This is only offered as a simple structure - any case could begin in one category and move to another.

1 The Unreasonable Litigant.

In libel, this label may most often be attributed to the claimant -- and in extreme cases they may become vexatious. In mediation, it is more likely to be the defendant who will not go to mediation or run risks of being penalised in costs for not dealing with it properly. In either case, prospects in mediation will be limited, regardless of the two variables we are looking at.

2 The Principled Case.

This is typified by a defendant who has conducted a detailed investigation and has no intention of compromising with the claimant. Issues of time for investigation or the focus of decision-making may be predetermined and mediation could be an irrelevance.

3 The Principled Case - where evidence begins to falter.

In a variation of the above, as the litigation proceeds, gaps appear in one of the defences and the litigation risk increases. This then becomes a case where mediation might find a compromise more quickly than the "bunker" mentality of positional bargaining. This is particularly so when the defence has set out its case in a strong, unequivocal way and may find it difficult to draw back and explore all of the options in settlement.

4 The Commercial Case

The label covers the many cases where no particular principle is in issue, there is some material for a defence but no desire on the part of the defendants to do anything other than extricate themselves from proceedings. These are eminently suitable to mediation. It is also the type of case where client focus may otherwise be lacking.

Either of the last two cases can fall into this category -- where one-party (usually the defendant) decides that, whatever principle they began with, it is now swamped by commercial considerations and a pragmatic take is required.

My recollection here is of cases allowed to run for several years, where the claimant has not had to incur significant costs or take particular steps and the defence has watched its evidence "grow old" as costs escalate. This particular kind of case should be disappearing under the current procedural reforms.

5 Error Cases

These may be able to be considered into groups:

(a) An error that is so obviously wrong that an early apology is necessary in mitigation and negotiation of a fuller settlement then follows.

(b) An error where there is a prime facie defence and further investigation is needed.

Both cases are suitable for mediation and only the time factor distinguishes them. Even in (b) the assessment of whether a defence is available should be made swiftly.

As we proceed through these types we see the likelihood of settlement increases and so do the prospects in mediation. My point is that this should not be seen as a point that devalues mediation. It should be a mechanism to identify when mediation may be the quicker and cheaper route. Beyond that, when the two variables I have chosen are in play strongly, mediation is correspondingly a stronger contender.

The Protocol: lip service?

I am still finding that quite experienced libel lawyers do not spend a great deal of time dealing with the mediation consideration.

One documented account of mediation in libel comes from the CEDR Civil Justice Audit of 2000 (p. 31).

That was a libel arising from live radio broadcasting and the main allegation against the claimant was poor parenting. The defendant's lawyer said that negotiations had taken place -- but failed. The mediation succeeded "just short of trial".

It is an example where I would speculate that coordinating the broadcasters response may not have been that easy and one where, in retrospect, the attempted mediation could have been successful much earlier in the process. It is impossible to say whether it could have succeeded before action -- as the protocol may envisage -- but it is the type of case where careful analysis of the options early must surely be of benefit to all concerned.

Although I have not gathered any empirical evidence ( but may attempt to do so in the future), I was interested to find that one senior mediator had only had two defamation claims in the last five years to work with and at least some suggestion from experienced practitioners that they are not that persuaded by the benefits of mediation.

The Card Players

Drawing parallels between litigation and the smoky image of a gambling den may not be particularly original, but it is still apposite and was certainly in the mind of one judge in a case that came before the courts recently. So, with images of Cézanne oil paintings to the fore, I would like to look at this decision which I feel can be used to illustrate some of my points. It may be seen as a case which lay between the penultimate and last of my case types.

It was the case of John Cleese v. Peter Clarke, Associated Newspapers Limited (2003).

It was resolved under the offer of amends procedure. It appears that the defendant took a little time to assess their position before making the offer. On the accounts that I have seen, I have no indication of whether mediation was considered before action was instigated, afterwards or at all. As reported, the offer of amends procedure required a court hearing because the claimant felt that the level of offer was not sufficient.

In those terms, it can be seen as a classic "gap" case, which is one of the most amenable to mediated settlement.

Looking at some of the practical suggestions that Mr. Justice Eady put forward for future cases, each of them can be interpreted to support my argument that there is a significant difference between negotiated settlement and mediation – with mediation offering definite advantages.

Suggestion one: A roundtable meeting is a good idea before going to court.

Having conducted this type of meeting in large libel actions, I am aware of their limitations and the difficulty (in my case) of being both the defence lawyer and chairing the meeting. I recall more meetings that resulted in the settlement than the parties walking away, but in retrospect I would have welcomed the structure of the mediation and neutrality of a good mediator.

Suggestion two: The parties should identify issues promptly and frankly.

This will be recognised as an essential part of the mediation process -- where the essence is to go beyond a simple "rights" analysis and look towards a "needs" analysis. In my experience, the mediation approach is broader and operates on more value levels than the average face-to-face negotiation.

Suggestion Three: There should be a frank exchange of views.

This is essential and libel is one of the sectors where the value of "venting emotion" moves from being a cliché to a reality. It is often a necessary precursor to realistic mediation.

Suggestion Four: There should be no posturing or withholding of relevant matters.

Mr Justice Eady went on to comment that solicitors’ letters were often terribly stilted and full of endless point scoring of the "we are surprised to note" variety. Although too often guilty as charged, I must agree and my experience is, again, that point scoring and posturing can sometimes come off the paper and spread into negotiations.

While I do not wish to do my fellow solicitors a disservice, we can probably all recognise cases where the expected macho litigation style may not necessary further a client's interests. I would go a step further. In my experience of mediation, it is often only when the lawyers are separated from their clients that important steps towards a settlement can be made. That is not to deny the lawyers role, but to reflect Mr. Justice Eady's point – sometimes an adversarial stand is counter-productive.

Carrots and sticks

The carrots are fairly obvious -- saving time and money. The sticks are more contentious. I will not review again the sequence of cases that have shown how a party who is unwilling to mediate or unreasonable in their refusal to do so end up picking up legal bills. In the particular case of libel, it is worth remembering that in the offer and amends procedure, the court can not intervene to change the terms of an apology, but it can adjust damages upwards if it concludes that the apology offered was not adequate. This is what appears to have happened in the Cleese case.

The offer of amends procedure is necessarily a "blind" process where the defendant puts an offer into play and hopes for the best. I would suggest that the more flexible thought processes of mediation would often help in avoiding extra damages and the costs of a court hearing, which are incurred when the gamble does not pay off for the defendant.


Unsurprisingly, my view is that mediation is underused in libel as I have argued previously it is underused in format rights disputes. I believe that, as a sector, awareness of ADR is not fully developed yet and that these are two of the subdivisions of common disputes where those who favour and support mediation should be working harder to bring it to the attention of their colleagues and clients.

© Sean Mc Ternan 2003

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.






To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.