Cairns tweet libel sets international legal first

27 March 2012


Cairns tweet libel sets international legal first

The Chris Cairns' libel case is the first such trial stemming from Twitter, the global social networking phenomenon.

Cairns succeeded in his case against Indian businessman Lalit Modi, who accused him of match fixing and was awarded $174,000 in damages and $775,000 in Court costs, in New Zealand terms.

Jonathan Forsey, Special Counsel for Duncan Cotterill Lawyers, said that the case showed that Twitter was nodifferent from other social networking sites in the potential to harm a person's reputation - even within a limit of 140 characters (or fewer).

"On its facts, this case represents an entirely conventional defamation proceeding. It is, however, the first libel trial arising out of the global social networking phenomenon Twitter.

" The case shows that Twitter posts can be used to defame and the law will respond to them in thesame way as any other publication. Their informality and truncated nature affords no protection. Even if the extent of publications through such media is difficult to ascertain, established libel authorities (which would be followed in New Zealand) make it clear that Courts are inclined toprotect a claimant.

"One of the significant issues in relation to the case was a function of the technology involved with Twitter publications and involved determining the number of Twitter followers in England. This was relevant to the issue of whether the claim could be brought in England in the first instance, and also to the calculation of damages," Forsey said.

The Court received expert evidence which disagreed as to the extent of publication within the jurisdiction, but for the sake of argument the parties agreed that the Court should adopt a readership of 65, being a middle point between two sets of calculations. There was also an assumed readership of 1000 in respect of a Cricinfo online article.

Forsey said that even though the readership was limited, the Court said it did not mean that damages should be reduced to trivial amounts, as it was impossible to track the scandal and to “know what quarters the poison may reach” in the words of authority, established in 1972 - long before the advent of the internet. The Court noted that this remained true in the 21st century, “except that nowadays the poison tends to spread far more rapidly.”

Modi has already indicated that he will be filing an appeal (against the quantum of damages), so this may not be the last word in the matter, but the reasoning behind the jurisdiction and publication analysis in this decision is likely to be followed by New Zealand Courts, according to Forsey.

ends

© Scoop Media