Gould v Evolve Media (IMPRESS scheme)
IMPRESS · Press · England and Wales · May 2018
Why it matters
Shows the scheme delivering a remedy a claimant often wants more than money: a forced public apology and retraction on the same platforms that carried the article, alongside modest damages.
Summary
This is a press-arbitration decision under the IMPRESS scheme, Jonny Gould (Claimant) v Evolve Media Limited (Respondent), dated May 2018. The scheme offers a low-cost alternative to a libel action in the High Court, letting a complaint against a regulated publisher be decided by an arbitrator appointed through CIArb. The full award, with its findings and any remedy, is set out in the original, linked here.
The detail
Parties: Jonny Gould (Claimant) v Evolve Media Limited (Respondent)
Case number: IMPRESS Arbitration Scheme Case No. 132130205
Outcome: Defamation upheld: £900 damages plus a full published apology and retraction on the website and Twitter.
Quantum: £900
Applicable law: Arbitration Act 1996; English defamation law; the CIArb/IMPRESS arbitration scheme rules.
Issues in play: An individual's reputation against a publisher's article, with the remedy weighed for proportionality, again through the IMPRESS scheme rather than the courts.
Read the full decision at IMPRESS ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.