Your recent article 'Libel claimants do not need "name" firms, says QC' (see [2006] Gazette, 27 April, 5) gives a misleading impression because a key aspect of the Keir Starmer QC/Anthony Hudson opinion was not mentioned.

The opinion was based on the premise that claimants would have the benefit of specialist established counsel. As Mr Justice Eady said in the Gazley v News Group Newspapers [2004] EWHC 2675 (QB) libel case, while not laying down specific guidelines, 'to have the necessary or the proportionate expertise available one does not always need to instruct London specialist solicitors. An important factor is that any competent litigation solicitor in the country can call upon specialist members of the bar at very short notice. Indeed, as I have already said, Carter-Ruck took advice from counsel'.


When defending one article to trial can involve a £4 million downside (like a conditional fee agreement case we successfully defended last year), it reminds us that the objective is to provide access to justice without eroding article 10 freedom of expression rights any more than necessary.


If readers would like a copy of the opinion, please e-mail: anne.dawson@assocnews.co.uk.


Harvey Kass, legal director, Associated Newspapers, London