## Facts

- Jimmy Nail, a prominent film and television actor, was the subject of a 1998 biography, *Nailed: The Biography of Jimmy Nail*.
- The book was written by Geraint Jones and published by HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.
- Nail considered the book offensive and inaccurate but initially decided not to sue because he feared litigation would bring further attention to it.
- On 19 May 2002, Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd published a *News of the World* article titled “Auf Wiedersehen Jimmy’s Secret Bondage Orgies.”
- The article repeated and repackaged allegations about Nail’s sexual conduct and also portrayed him as arrogant, rude, and inconsiderate to others on set.
- The newspaper article drew heavily from the book and included information directing readers to buy the biography at a discounted price.
- Nail brought defamation proceedings in two actions: one against Newsgroup (and related individuals involved with publication) for the article, and one against Jones and HarperCollins for the book.
- In each action, the defendants made an unqualified offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996; Nail accepted, and apologies were published.
- With liability admitted via the statutory procedure, the remaining dispute was the amount of compensation the court should award under section 3(5) of the Defamation Act 1996.

## Issues

1. What amount of compensatory damages should be awarded under section 3(5) of the Defamation Act 1996 following accepted offers of amends for (a) the defamatory biography and (b) the defamatory *News of the World* article?
2. In fixing compensation under section 3(5), how should the court weigh the seriousness of the allegations, the scale and life of publication, the impact on reputation and feelings, and the mitigating effect of apologies and the offer-of-amends procedure?

## Decision

- The court assessed compensation under section 3(5) for each action heard together.
- The court awarded £45,000 in damages in respect of the book (against Jones and HarperCollins).
- The court awarded £30,000 in damages in respect of the *News of the World* article (against Newsgroup and those sued with it).
- The court treated the allegations as grave and damaging, warranting substantial compensation despite the procedural mitigation from prompt offers of amends and published apologies.
- The court differentiated between the two publications: the newspaper article had very wide reach but a short life, while the book’s allegations were more extensive and the publication remained available, increasing the need for compensation and vindication.

## Legal Principles

- After a claimant accepts an unqualified offer of amends under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1996, the court’s task under section 3(5) is to award compensation that is appropriate and proportionate; liability is no longer in dispute.
- In assessing compensation, the court considers the gravity of the libel and the extent of publication, including differences between a mass-circulation newspaper splash and continuing availability of a book.
- The award may reflect both objective reputational harm and the claimant’s subjective hurt feelings, including distress caused by the allegations and their impact on family and personal relationships.
- The defendant’s conduct remains relevant to quantum, including whether publication was handled responsibly and whether the defendant provided a timely and adequate apology or correction.
- The offer-of-amends procedure and published apologies operate as mitigation and can reduce damages compared to a fully fought action, but they do not reduce compensation to a token sum where the libel is serious and the claimant requires meaningful vindication.
- Proportionality also requires the court to keep the award in line with the general level of damages in comparable defamation cases, avoiding sums that are out of step with established awards.

## Conclusion

In *Nail v. Jones*, the High Court (QB) fixed compensatory damages under section 3(5) of the Defamation Act 1996 after Jimmy Nail accepted unqualified offers of amends and apologies for defamatory statements in a biography and a sensational *News of the World* article. The court awarded £45,000 for the book and £30,000 for the article, balancing the seriousness of the allegations and their impact against the mitigating effect of prompt statutory amends, while distinguishing between the newspaper’s broad but short-lived exposure and the book’s more sustained and detailed defamatory sting.


Nail v. Jones, [2004] EWHC 647 (QB)