Two separate defamation cases brought against 7Days newspaper have been dismissed by the Dubai Courts. In both cases Clyde & Co acted for 7 Days.

In the first, a British plaintiff lost a defamation case in the Court of Cassation in which he was seeking AED 1 million damages against the newspaper.

The Plaintiff issued his claim in Dubai Court of First Instance in July 2009. He alleged that he suffered material damage as a result of 7Days' actions in publishing actual and fabricated material about his family.

On 2 June 2009, the Plaintiff's wife was sentenced by the Misdemeanors Court in Dubai to 1 month imprisonment and deportation for having an affair with a male friend. The arrest and conviction stemmed from the Plaintiff filing a criminal complaint against his wife.

7Days followed the events and published a number of articles covering the criminal court proceedings against the wife and also comments made by her during their interviews with her.

The Plaintiff claimed that such articles contained defamatory material which had a devastating effect on him and his two daughters. He claimed that 7Days had disregarded the sanctity of his family which is contrary to Article 15 of the UAE Constitution. He argued that 7 days should have obtained authorisation from the public prosecution office, himself and each member of the family before publishing any article relating to the case.

The Plaintiff also requested that Article 79 of Federal Law No. 15 of 1980 Regarding Publications and Publishing (the "Publications Law") be applied. This article provides that news, photos or comments related to the secrets of private life or the family lives of individuals, may not be published, even if such secrets are true, if the aim of such publication is to abuse the person whose secrets are published.

7Days argued that it had not breached Article 79 of the Publications Law as the facts published were not family secrets.

7Days defended its position and argued that it had firstly published the news of the investigations with the wife and her male friend. After the conviction of the wife, it then published the facts of the criminal case and the decision rendered. It did not fabricate any false information and all information published were established facts in the criminal claim documents. It did not have any intention to defame the Plaintiff. The statements attributed to the Plaintiff were based on the wife's defence.

On 1 November 2009, the Dubai Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the Plaintiff's claim on the basis that the newspaper articles did not contain anything that abused or defamed the Plaintiff or his daughters. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 31 December 2009 and the Court of Cassation on 16 May 2010.

The Court of First Instance held, in its judgment, that the

"The Press has a vital and effective role in directing society and thus it should have sufficient freedom of expression and should consider the public right to information. This freedom of publication is conditional upon the reporter not misusing his right to publication to incur or inflict harm to others, or offend others' reputation or honour. The intention of the publication should not be defamation of people or offending their reputation i.e. publication in bad faith. The burden of proof of this bad faith lies with the Plaintiff. Such bad faith may also be established if the documents of the case contain anything to indicate this intention by fabricating false facts, or attributing false statements.
It is established that in this case, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against his wife upon catching her committing the act of adultery. He did not consider at the time of filing the complaint at the police station requesting the police to carry out investigations and proceed with a criminal case against his wife, that these actions would offend his character and the characters of his daughters.
The Plaintiff has only himself to blame for circulating the events amongst the police, public prosecution, the court and the press which reported the incident and investigations. He should have feared such defamation by immediately requesting the Public Prosecutor to prevent the publication of the events.
The Newspaper only reported the complaint as made by the Plaintiff, the arrest procedures and the investigations carried out by the public prosecution. Such events are true and not fabricated or exaggerated. The newspaper also published the events of the trial and the statements and confessions of the wife and did not intend to defame or disgrace the Plaintiff."

The second case involved an Egyptian Plaintiff who claimed AED 5million against the same newspaper for similar reasons. His wife had been sentenced to six months imprisonment followed by deportation for having an affair, which she always denied.

7Days published articles reporting on the case and comments made by the wife in interviews. The Plaintiff claimed that the publications were defamatory and had caused him moral and psychological damage.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the claim. It held.

"The Plaintiff reported his wife to the police who then charged her with adultery. The newspaper articles covered the court case and also gave the viewpoint of the Plaintiff and the wife's attorney.
In carrying out these actions, the newspaper did its duty of notifying readers in matters of various aspects of life so as to serve the public and manifest the various points of views of all parties.

As such, 7Days did not intent to defame the Plaintiff but they exercised their right lawfully for attaining public interest."

The Plaintiff did not appeal the ruling.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.