Former MP Tim Yeo loses libel case and faces costs of £400,000
Tim Yeo, the former MP, has lost his claim for libel against the Sunday Times, which alleged he breached parliamentary codes of conduct by telling reporters he could promote business concerns in return for cash.
Mr Yeo brought the case in 2013 in the wake of three reports in the Sunday Times, which followed a lunch the previous month with two undercover journalists from the Insight team posing as representatives for a solar energy concern in the Far East.
They alleged that he was prepared to, and had offered to, act in a way that was in breach of the Commons code of conduct by acting as a paid parliamentary advocate who would push for new laws to benefit the business of a client for a daily fee of £7,000 and approach ministers, civil servants and other MPs to promote a client’s private agenda in return for cash.
Mr Yeo was not at the High Court on Wednesday when Mr Justice Warby dismissed his case. He has agreed to pay Times Newspapers £411,000 on account of its legal fees within 28 days, with any further costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis.
At the week-long trial last month, Desmond Browne QC said that Mr Yeo was quite unjustifiably tarred with the same brush as another MP who had been exposed a week before. He said, “Although the articles in this case did not allege criminality, the allegations go right to the heart of Tim Yeo’s integrity as an MP, casting a shadow over his entire career.”
Gavin Millar QC, for Times Newspapers, said that the publication complied with the standards of responsible journalism. “No issue of source reliability or verification of the facts arose because the articles concerned the claimant’s recorded words and conduct in the presence of the journalists, in addition to matters of public record.
“The day after the lunch, the claimant, a very experienced parliamentarian, admitted that he had been aware at the meeting that it was being proposed that he undertake lobbying activities which were incompatible with his public office.
He said that the words and conduct of Mr Yeo at, immediately before and after, the meeting “amply” justified the truth of the allegation and, on any view – taken together with the admitted facts relating to his parliamentary and business activities – supported the comment meaning.
Mr Yeo said he was very disappointed with the judgment. He conceded that the words he used in conversation with undercover journalists were “not carefully chosen”.
He said: “I made the mistake of accepting a lunch invitation with two undercover journalists who posed as consultants working for a leading edge solar technology development company. I did so in the belief that they had approached me in good faith, seeking my advice on the promotion of an innovative product which would be of great benefit to the country.
“The conversation over lunch was informal, general and preliminary. My words, spoken in a friendly chat at an introductory lunch, were not carefully chosen, and I regret that, it seems, they have been misinterpreted. The fact is that I have not and would never have acted in breach of the rules of the House of Commons, which I have scrupulously observed throughout the time I was an MP.”
Direct Access Barrister - myBarrister