Twitter libel case resolved in favour of defamed ex-cricketer

Chris Cairns, who played for and captained New Zealand, was defamed when cricketing administrator Lalit Modi accused him of match fixing, the High Court ruled. Cairns is also entitled to an injunction, the terms of which have still to be drafted.

Modi had relied on evidence from cricketers that did not support the allegations he made, Mr Justice Bean said.

"In my judgment Mr Modi has singularly failed to provide any reliable evidence that Mr Cairns was involved in match fixing or spot fixing, or even that there were strong grounds for suspicion that he was," the judge said in his ruling. 

"[Gaurav Gupta, Rajesh Sharma and Tejinder Pal Singh] are not to be believed for the reasons I have given; the hearsay evidence of [other players Amit Uniyal and Love Ablish] is inconsistent and unreliable; and Karanveer Singh's last-minute evidence falls well short of sustaining [Modi's] case," he said. "Even if I were applying a simple balance of probabilities test, the plea of justification would fail in both respects. [Cairns] is accordingly entitled to damages."

To be considered libellous under common law in the UK comments must be published, communicated to someone other than the person being defamed and not be justified by a range of defences, including that the comments are true or were expressed as an opinion.

The judge said that Modi's 'tweet' was "received by only a limited number of followers within England and Wales," which he estimated as totalling 65.

Mr Justice Bean said the level of damages had to be" assessed on the basis that [Cairns] was a professional cricketer of good character and reputation" and that, despite the limited publication, "poison" could spread quickly as a result of the internet. The fact that Modi has not apologised to Cairns for the comments was also a factor.

"It is obvious that an allegation that a professional cricketer is a match fixer goes to the core attributes of his personality and, if true, entirely destroys his reputation for integrity," Mr Justice Bean said.

"The allegation is not as serious as one of involvement in terrorism or sexual offences ... But it is otherwise as serious an allegation as anyone could make against a professional sportsman," he said.

The judge said he was originally going to award Cairns £75,000 in damages but increased the figure after a "particularly offensive" closing speech by Modi's lawyer aggravated the matter.

"The flavour of the way the defence was run at trial is most vividly conveyed by the closing speech on behalf of [Modi]," Mr Justice Bean said. "[Modi's lawyer] could hardly have pitched it higher. The words 'liar', 'lie' and 'lies' were used in all 24 times."

"One passage, as [Cairns' lawyer] rightly says, stands out as particularly offensive to [Cairns]:- 'In our submission it was nothing short of a diabolical scheme that involved blackmailing young players of ability and integrity into match fixing when that was the last thing they wanted to do. … So they were prisoners. They were being abused. There was a breach of trust by the captain and the vice-captain. They were like children in an orphans' home who, abused by everyone around them, can trust no one, can report to no one'," the judge said.

"This attack, with the benefit of absolute privilege, must be taken to have been made on the instructions of Mr Modi. I take the view that the sustained and aggressive assertion of the plea of justification at the trial increases the damages recoverable by a factor of about 20%. My starting point for damages, before the aggravation to which I have just referred, is £75,000. After taking account of the aggravation I award the sum of £90,000," he said.

Mr Justice Bean had also rejected claims by Modi's lawyer that the case was one of "libel tourism". Cairns was entitled to bring a case against Modi in England because he and his children went to school there, he played for an English county cricket team for 7 seasons and because he has lived in the country since mid-2010. If the case was tried in India it "would have involved very long delays," he said.