Rice v Byline Media (IMPRESS scheme)
IMPRESS · Press · England and Wales · 6 July 2017
Why it matters
A worked example of the Leveson press-arbitration model in action: a real defamation claim against a regulated publisher decided by a CIArb-appointed arbitrator, with a modest damages figure and a practical remedy, at a fraction of court cost.
Summary
This is a press-arbitration decision under the IMPRESS scheme, Dennis Rice (Complainant) v Byline Media (Respondent Publisher), dated 6 July 2017. 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: Dennis Rice (Complainant) v Byline Media (Respondent Publisher)
Case number: IMPRESS Arbitration Scheme Case No. 132130163
Outcome: Defamation partly upheld: one of two tweets found defamatory; £2,500 damages and a no-republication direction.
Quantum: £2,500
Applicable law: Arbitration Act 1996; English defamation law; the CIArb/IMPRESS arbitration scheme rules.
Issues in play: A publisher's freedom to tweet against an individual's reputation, decided through the low-cost IMPRESS press-arbitration scheme rather than High Court libel litigation.
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.