FA Chief’s Substantial Defamation Damages

At a remedies hearing in the High Court, Martin Richard Glenn, former Chief Executive Officer of the Football Association (FA) was today awarded substantial damages and costs against Craig Kline, some time Assistant Director of Football and Director of Statistical Research at Fulham FC, in respect of, principally, a long series of Twitter posts: Martin Glenn v Craig Kline [2021] EWHC 468 (QB), Richard Spearman QC.

The Claimant successfully applied for judgment in default of Acknowledgement of Service towards the end of last  year. Costs of that hearing, summarily assessed at £25,000 were ordered to be paid by close of business on 18 December 2020 but were not satisfied.

Before the Deputy High Court Judge, the Claimant successfully applied, pursuant to CPR 17.1(2)(b) to increase the upper limit of his claim from £25,000 to £100,000.

The Claimant explained in his application that when he first commenced proceedings, the motivation was not financial.  But since the Claim Form was issued, the Defendant had continued to exhibit contempt for his rights and feelings and an unwillingness to cease his actions.

The damages award should, therefore, mark the gravity of the wrong done to the Claimant, vindicate his reputation and compensate him for the damage to his reputation and feelings.

The Court approached the amendment application in accordance with the overriding objective: Glenluce Fishing Company Ltd v Watermota Ltd [2016] EWHC 1807.

The claim was for libel and harassment arising principally from the Twitter posts but also from some emails.  After a detailed letter of claim was sent to the Defendant at the beginning of last year, he responded “Sue me if you like … I personally am trying to get things to court.  I already asked you to sue several times, please do.”

The defamatory tweets started in early November 2018 and during the same month sent an email to two professional game representatives on the FA Board making serious allegations.

As a result, the FA engaged independent investigators to look into the allegations against the Claimant.

Although the Claimant was confident that the allegations were entirely without merit, the investigation was unpleasant and highly intrusive.  He was questioned robustly by two former police officers and surrendered his mobile phone.

The allegations were soon picked up by the national media.  Those unfounded allegations (which have been reported in the media) will not be fuelled by repetition  here.

The negative publicity had an immediate direct on the Claimant’s life and reputation.  It brought enquiries from a prominent public company, on whose board the Claimant sits.

In the result, although being invited to do so, the Defendant produced no evidence for any of his allegations, and the investigators found no such evidence.  The FA also invited the Defendant to attend a meeting to discuss other allegations that he had made, but he never arranged a time for a meeting.

The defamation continued through 2018 and 2019, but because the claim form was not issued until 1 May 2020 the claims for libel preceding 1 May 2019 were time barred, so the Claimant could sue for harassment alone.

The Claimant was awarded damages of £100,000 in respect of all his causes of action for defamation and harassment.

There was no need to grant an injunction to restrain repetition as the Defendant had already given permanent undertakings to the Court.  Pursuant to section 12 Defamation Act 2013, the Defendant was ordered to publish a summary of today’s judgment, to pay the costs of today’s hearing before the Deputy Judge summarily assessed at £17,500 and to pay a further sum of £40,000 on account of the Claimant’s full costs of the claim.