From #MeToo to defamation

January 7, 2024

Meesha Shafi is seeking damages for defamation in the United Kingdom

From #MeToo to defamation


R

eporting linked to a harassment claim in 2018 has triggered additional claims and legal battles. In April 2018, artiste Meesha Shafi, had accused fellow artiste Ali Zafar on social media of harassing her on several occasions while they were friends and collaborating on music projects.

The latest legal claim was initiated by Shafi in a high courts of England and Wales. She has sought liability for defamation against a broadcast on NVTV that included certain statements regarding her. On December 5, 2020, the channel had aired a broadcast that included pictures of Meesha Shafi both by herself and with Zafar, as well as a video of Zafar along with pictures of court orders, some offensive tweets and scenes from a sessions court in Lahore.

Meesha Shafi identified three segments that were aired with numerous tickers repeating the disparaging remarks. One of the segments said that singer Meesha Shafi had quietly travelled to Pakistan and returned to Canada after recording some songs at the studios but not had not attended court proceedings. Meesha Shafi had been summoned following to accusations of defamation made against her by Ali Zafar.

Under English law, any published statements that defame a named or identifiable person in a way that results in them losing their trade or profession or harming their reputation may give rise to libel action in a high court. Justification, honest opinion (formerly known as fair comment) and privilege are all acceptable forms of defence. If the defendant cannot substantiate the defamatory statement, it is presumed to be false.

Any reputational harm brought on by the publication of false defamatory statements is dealt under the defamation law. Defamation is the general term for two distinct torts: slander and libel. The distinction depends on how persistent the defendant’s statement is, but generally speaking, slander refers to more ephemeral statements, like spoken words, while libel covers written publications, even if they are promptly removed.

The Defamation Act, 2013, and related statutes now primarily govern defamation law in England and Wales, with common law serving as a supplement. The defendant bears the burden of proof in English defamation law; the plaintiff is not required to demonstrate falsity, which means that the NVTV will have to prove that the broadcast contained truth.

Following a preliminary trial, Judge Mr Johnson of the Royal Court of Justice ruled that the broadcast’s statements of fact meant and were understood to mean that Meesha Shafi had been subject to two years’ worth of court orders compelling her to appear in a Pakistani court for the purpose of defamation proceedings. Despite being aware of the direction, the claimant disregarded them. She left Canada for Pakistan, and she purposefully disregarded the court’s orders rather than following them as required. After recording a song, she left and went back to Canada.

If successful in her claim, Meesha Shafi could be awarded damages to compensate her for damage to her reputation.

The judge determined that Meesha Shafi was understood to have intentionally disregarded court orders when the channel used the phrase “threw the court orders to the winds.“

The judge went on to say that there might be some situations where it wouldn’t be considered defamatory under common law to imply that someone disobeyed court orders. But in this instance the channel implied that Meesha Shafi, the well-known singer and activist, had failed to follow a court order for a considerable amount of time. This order was not technical but rather fundamental, as it called for the attendance of a party in court. According to the judge, this was defamatory under common law.

Barrister David Lemer representing Meesha Shafi, from Doughty Street Chambers, stated before court that Meesha Shafi was a well-known and prominent Pakistani-Canadian celebrity. He informed the judge that Meesha Shafi was portrayed in the broadcasts as someone who routinely acted in this manner and disregarded the rules set forth by the law. According to him, saying such a thing would tend to make right-thinking people think less of Meesha Shafi in general because it went against the society’s shared values for people to willfully disobey court orders requiring them to attend, especially when they do so for a long time. According to the attorney, the broadcast conveyed the idea that Ali Zafar was in the right and Meesha Shafi was attempting to evade the legal system. The counsel said actually Meesha Shafi had always complied with court notices, participated in the court proceedings, and had never disregarded any orders for a court appearance.

This was only a preliminary trial, which mainly pertained to determining whether Meesha’s defamation claim was actionable. The case will go to further trial to determine the possible outcome. If successful in her claim, Meesha Shafi could be awarded damages to compensate her for damage to her reputation. Another possible remedy could be an apology, which although frequently a part of a settlement package of remedies agreed upon by the parties, cannot be granted by the court. Section 12 of the Defamation Act does, however, state that the court has the authority to order the defendant to make the case’s result public. Injunctions, which are extremely difficult to come by, prohibit a threatened/ imminent publication of a defamatory statement in order to obtain which the claimant must demonstrate that the defendant would not be able successfully to raise any defences at trial.


The writer is an advocate of High Court, a founding partner at Lex Mercatoria and a visiting teacher at Bahria University’s Law Department.

From #MeToo to defamation