Wall Street Journal Loses Libel Appeal

The Wall Street Journal today failed in its high court bid to reverse a libel action it lost last year, leading its lawyer to call the so-called Reynolds defence a flawed "damp squib".

Lord Phillips upheld an earlier judgment awarding £30,000 in libel damages to Saudi businessman Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel, whom the paper had wrongly linked to terrorist organisations.

The proceedings related to an article headlined "Saudi officials monitor certain bank accounts", which appeared in February 2002 and wrongly alleged that Mr Jameel was one of several high profile Saudis whose businesses were being monitored at the request of US regulators.

The paper had hoped to argue that it had behaved responsibly in publishing the article, but it did not, during the libel action, claim the story was true.

"We brought this action to protest the reputation of our business, established over 50 years. We are delighted that the court of appeal has ruled in our favour," said Mr Jameel.

The Wall Street Journal will now take its fight to the House of Lords and the European court on the grounds that the ruling does not comply with European laws that enshrine freedom.

The newspaper industry was awaiting today's court decision with interest because the Wall Street Journal was using public interest grounds - similar to those used by the Sunday Times against a libel brought by former Irish prime minister Albert Reynolds - for publishing the original story that libelled Mr Jameel.

The Reynolds defence meant newspapers could print untrue and defamatory information if they could prove it was in the public interest and was the product of responsible journalism.

The paper's lawyer, Mark Stephens, said the judgment was merely a "recitation and repetition" of the existing law of qualified privilege.

"There is a flaw in the qualified privilege defence that is highlighted where you have five anonymous sources that cannot come to court. It is obviously a major concern for people who want to see a free flow of information."

Mr Stephens said pending appeal cases waiting to see if the Jameel appeal verdict would have an impact on them would be unaffected.

"Reynolds is a bit of a damp squib. Everyone was expecting it to have an impact but I suspect it won't."