Ken Bates LOSES Libel Case! 50K + Own Costs 1.5M

[QPR Report]

That is so sad!

Guardian/David Conn

Ken Bates loses high court libel case
Leeds United chairman wrote libels in match programmes which caused 'obvious distress and injury' to former club director

Ken Bates has lost the libel action brought against him by the former Leeds United director Melvyn Levi, over articles Bates wrote in three Leeds United match programmes in 2006 and 2007, in which he accused Levi, among other allegations, of being a "shyster" trying to "blackmail" the club, and an "enemy within."

The full judgment is here.
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1495.html

Levi was awarded £50,000 damages, a level the judge, Sir Charles Gray, described as "at the higher end of the bracket" asked for by Levi's barrister, Simon Myerson QC. That award, Sir Charles writes in his judgment, reflects:

- "the gravity of the libels: the allegation of blackmail is particularly serious;"
- "the fact that the libels were repeated on several occasions over a period of ten months;"
- "the fact that Mr Bates sought unsuccessfully to justify his statements about Mr Levi..." and
- "perhaps most important of all, the obvious distress and injury to Mr Levi's feelings caused by the libels."

Sir Charles particularly highlighted the "gratuitous inclusion of Mr Levi's home address" in one of the programme articles, and in another, "the reference to [Mr Levi's] home telephone number being in the telephone book, which was in effect an invitation to Leeds fans to pester Mr Levi."

Bates was ordered to pay Levi's costs which, together with Bates' own costs, are estimated to be approaching £1.5m. In his evidence last month, Bates told the court that despite receiving £17m from Roman Abramovich when the Russian oligarch bought Chelsea from him in 2003, Bates does not in fact have much cash. He said he was not in a position to put money into Leeds when the club was in financial difficulties, because: "People can be rich, but not cash rich - they have assets." Sir Charles asked Bates if he was saying that was his position, and Bates replied: "Yes."

I intend to write about this case in more detail, considering what it means for Leeds United, and how it reflects on Ken Bates, within the next few days. All thoughts from readers will in the meantime be received with interest.

www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2009/jul/02/football-leeds-united-ken-bates-libel-action

[Zamoraaaah]

[QPR Report]

And earlier reports from the court case

qprreport.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=4114&page=1

[QPR Report]

Left out link to Full Judgement

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1495.html


Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 1495 (QB)
Case No: HQ07X03342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
2nd July 2009


B e f o r e :

SIR CHARLES GRAY
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court
____________________

Between:
MELVYN LEVI

Claimant

- and -



KEN BATES
Defendant


____________________

Simon Myerson QC (instructed by Ford and Warren) for the Claimant
Ronald Thwaites QC and Jacob Dean (instructed by Carter-Ruck) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th & 18th June 2009
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

Sir Charles Gray :


Overview

This libel action arises out of events surrounding the acquisition by a consortium headed by Mr Ken Bates of Leeds United Football Club in 2005. I will hereafter refer to that club as "the Club". As I will explain later various companies have either controlled or been associated with the Club over the material period.

The Claimant in the action is Mr Melvyn Levi, who describes himself as an entrepreneur and business man. He has lived and worked in and around Leeds all his life. He is now aged 65 years. The Defendant, Mr Bates, is also a business man. He has throughout his life had a passion for football. He now resides in Monaco.

It will be necessary for me to go in some detail into the background to the acquisition of the Club by Mr Bates's consortium, as well as into the convoluted transactions by which ownership of the Club was transferred.

Summary of the Issues

I will, however, start by summarising the issues which arise for decision.

Mr Levi complains as being libellous of him four publications, namely:

i) An article published in the programme of the Club dated 17 October 2006 and entitled "Just to bring you up to speed";

ii) An article published in the programme of the Club for 3 March 2007 entitled "The enemy within";

iii) An article published in the programme of the Club dated 10 March 2007 entitled "Why, Mr Levi, Why?" and

iv) A letter addressed to the Club members dated August 2007.

I...
COMPLETE
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1495.html

[QPR Report]

Yorkshire Post - Thursday, 2nd July 2009

Ken Bates faces £1.5m bill for lost libel fight

LEEDS United chairman Ken Bates has lost his libel battle at the High Court and has been ordered to pay £50,000 in damages to former director Melvyn Levi and faces a legal bill of around £1.5m.
A judge in London today ruled in favour of Mr Levi, who brought the action over comments made about him by Mr Bates, claiming he was 'persecuted'.

Following the judgment, Mr Bates, who was not present at today's hearing, was ordered to make an interim payment for legal costs of £400,000 while the total sum is calculated.

The 78-year-old was also refused permission to appeal but can apply directly to the Court of Appeal if he wishes to take the case further.

Judge Sir Charles Gray said the libel action arose out of events surrounding the acquisition of Leeds United Football Club by a consortium headed by Mr Bates in 2005.

Mr Levi, 65, from Leeds, sued over three articles written by the chairman in the Leeds United programme in 2006 and 2007 and a letter written to club members in August 2007.

His claim was that they contained "grave and offensive" libels which "seriously injured" his reputation. He said he was accused of being a "shyster" who had tried to blackmail the club over money.

Mr Bates denied libel but the judge ruled today he had failed in his defences of justification and fair comment.

The judge said the £50,000 damages he awarded was in respect of the three match programmes "where the defences failed".

Mr Levi's claim in relation to the letter failed as Sir Charles ruled this was covered by qualified privilege.

The judge listed a number of factors he had taken into account when calculating the damages, including the "gravity of the libels" which were "repeated on several occasions over a period of 10 months".

Another relevant factor was the fact "the publishees, principally supporters of the club, were persons whose esteem Mr Levi valued".

Mr Bates had "sought unsuccessfully to justify his statements about Mr Levi and continued to do so in a public trial lasting many days".

The judge added that, in assessing the damages, perhaps the most important factor of all was the "obvious distress and injury to Mr Levi's feelings caused by the libels".

He added: "In this regard I take account of the gratuitous inclusion in the second publication complained of, dated March 3 2007, of Mr Levi's home address in Leeds and the reference in the third publication complained of, dated March 10 2007, to his home telephone number being in the telephone book which was in effect an invitation to Leeds fans to pester Mr Levi."

During the nine-day trial last month, Simon Myerson QC, for Mr Levi, said he had been one of the members of a consortium - the Yorkshire Consortium - which bought the club about 10 months before Mr Bates's purchase and had "rescued it from demise".

He told the judge: "It is in October of 2006 that Mr Bates starts what we say is a campaign, or at least a course, of defamatory comment..."
One of the "vehicles" he used, said the QC, was his column in the club's programme.

Part of Mr Levi's case was that, in an article published in a programme in March 2007, entitled The Enemy Within, he was accused of blackmail, of being dishonourable and of making unscrupulous attempts to obtain money which had deterred investors in Leeds United.

The judge said the "sting" of one of the publications lay in the reference to Mr Levi as a "shyster".

"That term would in my judgment have been understood to mean that Mr Levi is someone who engages in sharp, disreputable and dishonest practices," said Sir Charles.

After the hearing, Mr Levi said: "I am happy. All I wanted to do was to clear my name and I have done."


www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Ken-Bates-faces-15m-bill.5423515.jp

[QPR Report]

Sorry. I like this story!

[QPR Report]

Yorkshire Post
Ex-Leeds director tells of 'upset' over Ken Bates campaign

By Rob Waugh

FORMER Leeds United director Melvyn Levi yesterday spoke of the "huge upset" caused by club chairman Ken Bates's "campaign to discredit me" – which resulted in an expensive libel bill for the soccer chief.
Mr Levi also assured Leeds fans that his legal battle with Mr Bates was not directed towards the club and was only aimed at defending his name.

Mr Bates was ordered to pay £50,000 in damages on Thursday by the High Court and also faces a £1.5m bill for costs. He had accused Mr Levi of being "a shyster" who tried to blackmail the club after a dispute developed following Mr Bates's takeover of Leeds in 2005.

The club chairman described some aspects of the judgment delivered by Sir Charles Gray as "rather extraordinary" and said he was considering taking the case to the Court of Appeal.

But at a news conference in Leeds, Mr Levi described "a most difficult and testing four years for myself and my family."

He said at one point – after Mr Bates had published his home address in the club programme – his family had to carry personal alarms directly linked to the police.

He said: "The whole episode has been hugely upsetting to me. I am delighted and relived that the judgment recognises both that upset and that the action was not financially driven.

"The action had nothing to do with Leeds United, to whom I wish only success."

Mr Levi also warned that further legal action against Mr Bates may follow in the light of the judgment though he declined to say what this might involve.

The High Court heard how the libel action arose out of events surrounding the acquisition of Leeds by a consortium headed by Mr Bates in 2005.

Mr Levi was one of the members of the Yorkshire Consortium, which bought the club about 10 months before Mr Bates' purchase.

The businessman sued over "grave and offensive" libels in three articles written by Mr Bates in the club programme in 2006 and 2007 and a letter written to club members in August 2007.

Part of his case was that, in an article published in a programme in March 2007 entitled The Enemy Within, he was accused of blackmail, of being dishonourable and of making unscrupulous attempts to obtain money which had deterred investors in Leeds United.

In his ruling, judge, Sir Charles Gray said the "sting" of one of the publications lay in the reference to Mr Levi as a "shyster".

"That term would in my judgment have been understood to mean that Mr Levi is someone who engages in sharp, disreputable and dishonest practices," said Sir Charles.

The judge described the allegation of blackmail as "particularly serious".

He said the libels were repeated "on several occasions over a period of 10 months" and the "publishees, principally supporters of the club, were persons whose esteem Mr Levi valued".

Mr Bates had denied libel, but the judge ruled that he had failed in his defences of justification and fair comment.

Sir Charles said the £50,000 damages he awarded was in respect of the three match programmes "where the defences failed".

Mr Levi's claim in relation to the letter failed as the judge ruled that it was covered by qualified privilege.

In a statement, Mr Bates said: "We were disappointed in the judgment handed down, some aspects of which we find rather extraordinary, and we are considering an appeal."

He added that "...the Judge refused us leave to appeal, but also refused to give any reason why, which is unusual. But he will give written reasons in due course. When we have received his written reasons we will consider whether to go to the Court of Appeal."

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/leeds/ExLeeds-director-tells-of-39upset39.5428940.jp

[eusebio13]

Bates & Ecclestone in Panto this Christmas season

[QPR Report]

With guest appearance from Paolo Di Canio ?