| overview 
 issues
 
 australia
 
 practice
 
 justice
 
 studies
 
 offline 1
 
 offline 2
 
 offline 3
 
 online 1
 
 online 2
 
 online 3
 
 incidence
 
 the state
 
 tabloids
 
 money
 
 novels
 
 reviews
 
 gripes
 
 checklist
 
 landmarks
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  related
 Guides:
 
 Governance
 
 Hate Speech
 
 Censorship
 
 Publishing
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 |  money 
 This page offers some indicators of awards and other data.
 
 It covers -
  awards 
 Korieh Duodu commented of the UK in 2005 that
  
                      The 
                        advantages to both claimants and defendants of settling 
                        claims early has seen a gradual downturn in the number 
                        of libel cases fought all the way to final judgment. However, 
                        the media will continue to make mistakes, reputations 
                        will continue to be threatened and cases will still be 
                        pursued. If media groups still feel chilly, then they 
                        might make better use of the warm clothing which recent 
                        law reforms have offered. Dennis 
                      Hale's 2002 The Impact of State Prohibitions of Punitive 
                      Damages on Libel Litigation: An Empirical Analysis 
                      (PDF) 
                      asked whether US state prohibitions on punitive damages 
                      influence the quantity and quality of media libel litigation, 
                      concluding that there was no effect.
 What is the price of a reputation ... or merely the damage 
                      to an individual's honour and repute in a particular instance? 
                      Substantial awards or pre-trial settlements have gained 
                      attention along with famously derisory - or merely coolheaded 
                      - awards such as the farthing awarded to the agrieved Whistler.
 
 There is considerable dispute about whether awards by juries 
                      (and decisions by appeal courts) are reflecting an 'inflation' 
                      in damages awarded for physical injury. Unsurprisingly it 
                      appears that some awards serve as a threshold. One example 
                      is the 1995 decision in Hill v. Church of Scientology, 
                      a Canadian case in which the appeal court upheld an award 
                      of C$1.6 million. Prior to that time the highest damages 
                      upheld on appeal in a Canadian defamation case was C$135,000. 
                      By 2000 awards of C$500,000 were not uncommon.
 
 The MLRC Report noted earlier 
                      in this profile identifies a long-term increase in the average 
                      and median initial awards after trial, with initial trial 
                      awards rising from a 1980s average of US$1.5 million to 
                      a 1990s average of just under US$3 million and an average 
                      US$3.4 million since 2000. The 1980s median of US$200,000 
                      rose to US$350,000 in the 1990s and US$724,500 since 2000.
 
 
  costs 
 What is the indicative cost of defamation action in Australia 
                      and elsewhere?
 
 The answer again is not clear, because instances where legal 
                      costs were reported - typically by those boasting how much 
                      they were happy to pay to defend their honour or by litigants 
                      when costs were awarded to an opponent - may not be representative. 
                      In the UK and Australia there have been cases (such as the 
                      David Irving case) 
                      where costs for barristers, associates and experts went 
                      over the million dollar mark. Elsewhere this site notes 
                      suggestions that government figures in Singapore, Malaysia, 
                      Austria and elsewhere have consciously used defamation law 
                      as a tool to silence criticism, including impoverishing 
                      opponents through suits that exhaust the opponent's financial 
                      resources and energy
 
 In practice, apart from personal anguish, the major cost 
                      of most defamation regimes may lie in the day to day handling 
                      of complaints and queries. In 2002 the UK Internet Service 
                      Providers Association (ISPA) for example claimed that responding 
                      to defamation complaints - substantive or otherwise - about 
                      online content costs between £50 and £1,000, 
                      a concern broadly endorsed by the 2002 Law Commission report 
                      (PDF).
 
 
 
 
 
  
                      
 
 
  next page  
                      (novels) 
 
 
 
 | 
                      
                     |