DCSIMG

Sponsored by Rapid Solicitors
Ken Bates facing £1.5m bill over lost Leeds United libel case

CONTROVERSIAL Leeds United chairman Ken Bates faces a costs bill of around £1.5m after losing his acrimonious libel battle at the High Court with former club director Melvyn Levi.

More: Ken Bates loses his winning habit

Mr Bates, 78, was yesterday ordered to pay 50,000 damages to Mr Levi over allegations that he was a "shyster" who tried to blackmail the club over money.

But the costs represent the greater financial burden, as judge Sir Charles Gray ordered Mr Bates to pay an initial 400,000 pending a final calculation.

The club chairman, who lives in Monaco and was not present for the judgment, was refused permission to appeal, but he can still apply directly to the Court of Appeal to take the case further.

It emerged in court that Mr Levi had offered to settle the case for 15,000 in damages and an apology last December, but Mr Bates refused the offer. Mr Bates did not respond to a request to comment last night.

After the decision was announced Mr Levi, 65, said outside court: "I am happy. All I wanted to do was to clear my name and I have done."

The libel action stemmed from events surrounding Mr Bates's acquisition of Leeds from the Yorkshire Consortium, of which Mr Levi was a member, in 2005.

In three articles in the club's programme and a letter to club members between 2006 and 2007, Mr Bates alleged Mr Levi had refused to honour an obligation to transfer shares in Leeds United, was trying to blackmail the club, was a "shyster" and had scared off potential investors.

Mr Levi claimed the publications contained "grave and offensive" libels which "seriously injured" his reputation. Mr Bates defended his comments on the grounds of justification and fair comment.

Describing Mr Levi as a "credible and reliable" witness, Sir Charles Gray said none of the accusations against him had been justified by Mr Bates, nor were they fair comment.

In his ruling the judge said the "sting" of one of the publications lay in the reference to Mr Levi as a "shyster".

Sir Charles said: "That term would in my judgment have been understood to mean that Mr Levi was someone who engaged in sharp, disreputable and dishonest practices."

The judge said the libels were repeated "on several occasions over a period of 10 months" and the "publishees, principally supporters of the club, were persons whose esteem Mr Levi valued".

At the centre of the dispute was whether Mr Levi was obliged to give the green light to a share transfer which would have effectively given control of the club to Mr Bates and his backers.

Mr Levi said he believed there were good legal reasons to believe that a "call option" on the shares had lapsed, but Mr Bates accused him of blocking the transfer for no good reason, and in doing so, forcing him to abandon a rights issue in the club.

As a result of their stand-off, new shares were issued, which diluted the importance of the call option, left Mr Bates in a stronger position than before – and saw Cope Industrials Holdings Ltd, a company in which Mr Levi had an interest, 1.4m out of pocket.

The judge said the 50,000 damages he awarded was in respect of the three match programmes but not the letter to club members, which he ruled was covered by qualified privilege.

The judge added that, in assessing the damages, perhaps the most important factor of all was the "obvious distress and injury to Mr Levi's feelings caused by the libels".

Colourful club chief loses winning habit: Page 5.


loading...
Find It

"Business owner? - Claim your business and Advertise with us"

In association with qype logo

Looking for...

Featured advertisers

Jobs

Search for a job

Motors

Search for a car

Property

Search for a house

Weather for Yorkshire

Saturday 11 February 2012

5 day forecast

Today

Sunny spells

Sunny spells

Temperature: -2 C to 0 C

Wind Speed: 8 mph

Wind direction: South

Tomorrow

Cloudy

Cloudy

Temperature: 2 C to 5 C

Wind Speed: 8 mph

Wind direction: North west

Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.