February 2004
April Fool Joke May Cost Al Fayed Half a Million
It must have seemed like a good idea at the time. The high profile Harrods owner, Mohammed Al-Fayed published his apparent intention to float Harrods Ltd, the legal owner of the famous department store. He directed those interested in the float to contact Loof Lirpa, which is "April Fool" in reverse. Not realising this, the Wall Street Journal published an article regarding the supposed float. Once the tomfoolery became apparent, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "The Enron of Britain?". The article contained a warning to investors to check "every disclosure" from Harrods Ltd if it floated. The article led to Mr Al Fayed bringing a libel claim.
Having failed in his bid to sue the newspaper in the USA, Mr Al Fayed brought his claim to the UK courts where it also failed. Lawyers acting for Mr Al Fayed raised the concern that people in the UK could easily view the availability of the article on the Wall Street Journal website thereby making any libel actionable in the UK courts. Dow Jones, publishers of the Wall Street Journal, had argued that the article was clearly tongue in cheek and that it did not appear in European editions of the newspaper and were able to show that there were only 10 subscribers to the US edition of the Wall Street Journal living in the UK, and that the relevant page on the website had only received 10 hits. The jury in the case threw out Mr Al Fayed's claim and ordered him to pay Dow Jones' costs, estimated to be £40,000. In addition to his own legal bill which is estimated at £500,000, the joke seems to have been a costly one.
BRIFFA Comment:
Libel actions are a costly and unpredictable business. The fact that juries still decide many issues in such cases makes them even more risky. An interesting point that can be observed from this case is the importance attached to who actually had access to the material. When material is posted on the Internet there will always be a possibility that people world-wide will be able to access it. For the purposes of defamation, this creates a potential minefield as publication does not require a mass audience. The best way to make sure such problems are avoided is to have all material cleared in advance of any publication.