01279 464455
We Can Help You Choose the Right Path in Law

Latest Jobs:

Childcare Solicitor (Maternity Contract)
Commercial Property Lawyer
Conveyancing Assistant (12 months maternity cover)
Conveyancing Assistant
Conveyancing Paralegal
Senior Civil Litigation Lawyer (6+ PQE)
View All
09-12-2019

Elon Musk defamation jury ‘wrong in law’

British cave explorer Vernon Unsworth, center, with his attorneys, Mark Stephens, left, and Lin Wood


The ruling by a Californian jury that billionaire Elon Musk did not libel British cave diver Vernon Unsworth in a tweet was an error in law, according to the London solicitor who brought the action. However defamation specialist Mark Stephens, of London full-service firm Howard Kennedy, told the Gazette that no decision had been made on an appeal.

Stephens (pictured above, left) said the case hinged on whether the tweeted phrase 'pedo guy' was an accusation of a criminal offence or an insult. For Musk, Alex Spiro, of New York firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, had told the court that the tweet was an offhand comment made in the course of an argument between the two men, which no-one could be expected to take seriously.

However Stephens said the jury of eight people had erred in assuming that the tweet would have to identify Unsworth by name in order to be defamatory. While his client was not named in the offending tweet, he was clearly identifiable - indeed 'the only way he got to learn of it was that people drew it to his attention', he said.

A judge sitting without a jury, as is the norm in England and Wales defamation cases, would not have made that mistake, Stephens said: 'It is clear that [Unsworth] would have won here.' However Musk had refused to have the case heard in London.

Stephens said the option of an appeal was still open, though this would be 'quite difficult'. It would involve asking the trial judge to vacate the jury's verdict and order a retrial, he said. The action, which sought $5m in direct damages and $185m in exemplary damages, was brought under a no win, no fee arrangement.

British news outlets greeted the court's verdict on Friday with surprise. Under the headline 'A licence to troll', today's Daily Mail comments that the 'shocking travesty of justice' will encourage increasingly debased debate. 'The world's legal systems must get to grips with this social media "Wild West",' a leading article opines.

BBC technology specialist Dave Lee predicted that Musk's so-called 'JDart defence' - a joke deleted with apology and responsive tweets - would be widely used by anyone who 'who, in the heat of the moment, says something idiotic online'.

 https://bit.ly/2PrJXee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home

News

Recent headlines

Obiter

Brexit

Chuka Umunna Hugh GrantNews focus: Lawyers line up for parliament

Simon LordNews focus: Key questions remain as new AML regime looms

Family courtNews focus: Advocacy assurance plans 'retrogressive'

Analysis

Features

Commentary and opinion

Wellbeing

Feedback

Reviews

Insights

Rachel rothwelluseA Christmas gift on Part 36

Helen ConwayLubricating the cogs of a creaking legal system

Office worker sat at desk late at nightMental health needs to play on our minds

Law

Personal injury

Private client

Property

Risk and compliance

Law reports

Legal updates

Litigation funding

Practice points

Nicholas DobsonPublic sector equality duty

Richard baconDisclosure pilot scheme in the Business and Property Courts

Katherine HooleyRestrictions to maintain free and fair elections

Practice

SDT and SRA interventions

Practice management

Inland Revenue officeData page – November 2019

stats and calculatorData page – October 2019

PanelLeveraging social media and going it alone

In-house

EYCorporates cut legal function spending

inhouse-Conference-June-2019In-house conference: inside stories

Prince charlesPrince Charles tells GCs: you must act on climate change

Michelle FangGCs unveil tactics to make external firms diverse

People

Profiles

Roundtables

Women in the Law

Lawyer in the news

My legal life

Movers

Deceased

London 1919‘A great many she bears’

Paul TennantExe marks the spot

Emma BrooksLawyer in the news: Emma Brooks, Byrne and Partners

Directories

Charity Explorer

Barristers Chambers

Expert Witnesses

General Legal Services

International

Training Providers

Careers counsellor

Jobs

 

British cave explorer Vernon Unsworth, center, with his attorneys, Mark Stephens, left, and Lin Wood

 

Source: Damian Dovarganes/AP/Shutterstock

Law

Elon Musk defamation jury ‘wrong in law’

By Michael Cross9 December 2019

8 Comments

 

Save article

 

 

 

 

 

The ruling by a Californian jury that billionaire Elon Musk did not libel British cave diver Vernon Unsworth in a tweet was an error in law, according to the London solicitor who brought the action. However defamation specialist Mark Stephens, of London full-service firm Howard Kennedy, told the Gazette that no decision had been made on an appeal.

Stephens (pictured above, left) said the case hinged on whether the tweeted phrase 'pedo guy' was an accusation of a criminal offence or an insult. For Musk, Alex Spiro, of New York firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, had told the court that the tweet was an offhand comment made in the course of an argument between the two men, which no-one could be expected to take seriously.

However Stephens said the jury of eight people had erred in assuming that the tweet would have to identify Unsworth by name in order to be defamatory. While his client was not named in the offending tweet, he was clearly identifiable - indeed 'the only way he got to learn of it was that people drew it to his attention', he said.

A judge sitting without a jury, as is the norm in England and Wales defamation cases, would not have made that mistake, Stephens said: 'It is clear that [Unsworth] would have won here.' However Musk had refused to have the case heard in London.

Stephens said the option of an appeal was still open, though this would be 'quite difficult'. It would involve asking the trial judge to vacate the jury's verdict and order a retrial, he said. The action, which sought $5m in direct damages and $185m in exemplary damages, was brought under a no win, no fee arrangement.

British news outlets greeted the court's verdict on Friday with surprise. Under the headline 'A licence to troll', today's Daily Mail comments that the 'shocking travesty of justice' will encourage increasingly debased debate. 'The world's legal systems must get to grips with this social media "Wild West",' a leading article opines.

BBC technology specialist Dave Lee predicted that Musk's so-called 'JDart defence' - a joke deleted with apology and responsive tweets - would be widely used by anyone who 'who, in the heat of the moment, says something idiotic online'.

Law Consultants © 1989-2019 | Image Credits www.123rf.com
Recruitment website design by www.recruiterweb.co.uk