Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75

Citation

• Full case name: Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc
• Neutral citation: [2005] EWCA Civ 75
• Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales
• Judgment date: 3 February 2005
• Subject: defamation; internet publication; abuse of process; proportionality

Facts

The defendant published the Wall Street Journal Online. An article on that website was said to be defamatory of the claimant.

The publication complained of in England and Wales was very small. Only five subscribers within the jurisdiction were shown to have accessed the page.

The defendant applied to have the claim struck out on the basis that, whatever the merits, the game was not worth the candle.

Decision and ratio

The Court of Appeal held that allowing the claim to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court, and dismissed it.

The reasoning was one of proportionality. A libel action exists to vindicate reputation. Where publication within the jurisdiction has been minimal, any vindication achievable by a trial would be so slight that it could not justify the expense to the parties and the use of the court’s resources. The court was not saying the words were not defamatory, nor that no tort had been committed; it was saying that the remedy was not worth pursuing through a full trial.

The principle has since been applied well beyond defamation, and applications of this kind are routinely described in practice as Jameel applications.

What followed: the Defamation Act 2013

Parliament later put a threshold on the statute book. Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides:

“(1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. (2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not ‘serious harm’ unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.”

The section came into force on 1 January 2014. For a trading company, therefore, a defamation claim now requires serious financial loss, caused or likely to be caused by the publication. That is a substantive element of the cause of action, distinct from the court’s general power to stop a disproportionate claim as an abuse of process, which survives.

Why it matters for insurance

Defamation and reputational claims sit in media liability policies, in some directors and officers wordings and in a number of professional indemnity extensions. Two things follow from Jameel and from the 2013 Act.

First, defence costs dominate. Most of these claims are decided long before any question of damages arises, on strike-out or preliminary issue applications, and the money spent getting there is real money. Whether defence costs erode the limit or sit outside it is the single most important commercial term in a media liability wording, and it is often overlooked in favour of the headline limit.

Second, the threshold questions are where the value lies. A policy that gives the insured a say in choice of defence solicitors, and an insurer that will fund an early application, is worth more than one that will not. For businesses that publish anything — marketing content, reviews, research, social media — that is the part of the wording to look at.

See also

• Rolfe v Veale Wasbrough Vizards — the same proportionality logic applied to data claims
• Campbell v MGN — misuse of private information, the sister cause of action
• Gulati v MGN — when privacy claims are worth substantial money
• Lloyd v Google — the Supreme Court on mass low-value claims

References

• Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75 (Court of Appeal, 3 February 2005)
• Defamation Act 2013, section 1 (in force 1 January 2014)
• Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50

Frequently asked questions

What is a Jameel application?

An application to strike out or stay a claim on the ground that it is an abuse of process because so little is at stake that the costs and court resources involved would be out of all proportion to any legitimate benefit the claimant could obtain. It takes its name from this case and is now used well beyond defamation.

Did the Defamation Act 2013 replace the Jameel principle?

No. Section 1 of the Act added a substantive serious harm requirement to the cause of action, and for a trading company that means serious financial loss. The court's general power to stop a disproportionate claim as an abuse of process is separate and remains available.

Which policy covers a defamation claim against a business?

It depends on the programme. Media liability policies are the usual home; some directors and officers wordings and some professional indemnity extensions also respond. The commercially important term is usually whether defence costs erode the limit, because most of these claims are decided on costs rather than damages.

This page is insurance information for UK businesses, not legal advice. It summarises a reported judgment and explains why insurance buyers and brokers refer to it; it is not a substitute for reading the judgment or taking advice on your own facts. Case summaries are necessarily short and omit detail. Position stated as at August 2026.

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN 724952). This page is general information, not advice on a specific policy.