## Facts

- Elton John brought a defamation claim against MGN Ltd following the publication of an article in The Mirror that falsely alleged he engaged in disordered eating habits.
- The article caused reputational harm to the claimant.
- The jury awarded substantial general damages to Elton John.
- MGN Ltd appealed on the basis that the awarded damages were excessive.
- The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which addressed the appropriate framework for assessing damages in defamation cases.

## Issues

1. Whether the awarded damages for defamation were excessive and inconsistent with principles of fairness and proportionality.
2. What principles should guide the assessment and quantification of general damages in defamation cases.
3. To what extent jury discretion should be directed to ensure proportionate and consistent awards.
4. How courts should balance the protection of reputation with freedom of expression when determining defamation damages.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal provided structured guidance for the assessment of general damages in defamation, emphasizing proportionality and consistency.
- It held that judges must direct juries clearly on relevant factors, including seriousness of the defamation, extent of publication, impact on reputation, and the defendant's conduct.
- The court distinguished between compensatory and punitive damages, stating that general damages should predominantly serve to compensate rather than punish.
- Emphasized that damages awards must avoid excessiveness to prevent chilling effects on freedom of expression and legitimate journalism.
- Stressed the need for comparing awards in analogous cases to maintain fairness and predictability.

## Legal Principles

- General damages in defamation compensate for reputational harm, distress, and standing in the community.
- Proportionality is fundamental; damages must correlate to harm suffered and the defendant's conduct.
- Jury discretion in determining damages requires structured judicial guidance to reduce inconsistency and avoid excessive awards.
- The seriousness of the defamation, extent of publication, and claimant’s reputation are central to quantifying damages.
- Distinguishing compensatory from punitive damages is essential; punitive awards are exceptional.
- Excessive damages risk undermining freedom of expression and can discourage public discourse.

## Conclusion

John v MGN Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 35 is a leading authority on the assessment of general damages in defamation, mandating that awards be proportionate, fair, and guided by clear judicial instructions, thereby balancing the protection of reputation with freedom of expression.
