## Facts

- A newspaper published an article stating Saudi authorities were monitoring certain bank accounts, at U.S. request, for possible links to terrorism financing.
- The claimants were a prominent businessman and a related Saudi trading company; the article identified the corporate group (by coded designation) as among those whose accounts were monitored.
- The claimants alleged the publication meant they were suspected of funding terrorism, damaging personal and commercial reputation.
- The defendants did not plead truth; they relied primarily on Reynolds qualified privilege (responsible journalism on a matter of public interest).
- At trial, a jury found the publication defamatory and awarded damages; the trial judge and the Court of Appeal rejected Reynolds privilege.

## Issues

1. Whether a trading corporation with a commercial reputation in England and Wales may sue for libel and recover general damages without pleading or proving special damage.
2. Whether the publication was protected by Reynolds qualified privilege as responsible journalism on a matter of public interest, and how the Reynolds factors should be applied.

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed the newspaper’s appeal.
- A majority held a trading corporation may recover general damages for libel without pleading or proving special damage; the existing rule was not modified.
- The House unanimously held the publication was protected by Reynolds qualified privilege and should not have resulted in liability.
- The lower courts were found to have applied Reynolds too narrowly and rigidly, contrary to its purpose.

## Legal Principles

- Corporate reputation is a legally protectable interest; a trading corporation may sue for defamation without proof of special damage, even if it conducts no business in the forum but has a reputation there.
- Compatibility with freedom of expression is assessed within the overall defamation framework, including the availability of defences such as public-interest qualified privilege.
- Reynolds privilege turns on whether publication was responsible journalism on a matter of public interest.
- The publication must be assessed as a whole; it is not necessary to justify each detail separately if the public-interest justification supports the thrust of the article.
- The Reynolds factors are non-exhaustive considerations, not mandatory hurdles; courts should avoid checklist reasoning and allow for editorial judgment and practical constraints.
- Failure to obtain comment from the subject is relevant but not necessarily fatal where the topic is of strong public concern and the steps taken to verify are sufficient in context.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords reaffirmed that corporations can recover general damages for libel without proving special damage and held the article was protected by Reynolds public-interest qualified privilege, emphasizing a flexible, whole-publication assessment of responsible journalism.


Jameel v. Wall St. J. Eur. Sprl, [2007] 1 A.C. 359 (H.L. 2006)