HJA wins second apology and damages from The Times

Hodge Jones & Allen (HJA) has received an apology and substantial compensation from The Times newspaper, following claims the firm was being sued by a former client for negligence.

The front page article was published in June this year in relation to a MMR vaccine claim by HJA's former client Matthew McCafferty.

HJA issued proceedings for libel and malicious falsehood after The Times refused to take down the article from its website or publish a correction. As part of the settlement a statement was read out in the High Court by HJA's counsel Justin Rushbrooke QC.

"The article stated that the claimant was being sued by its former client Matthew McCafferty for substantial damages for negligence and 'unjust enrichment as officers of the Court' in relation to a claim relating to the MMR vaccine. This was incorrect. The claimant was threatened with proceedings by Mr McCafferty's lawyers, many years after it ceased to act for him, but no such proceedings have to date been issued. At the time of the article the claimant had informed Mr McCafferty's lawyers that any proceedings would be robustly defended. Furthermore it categorically rejects any suggestion that it was guilty of negligence, in particular the allegation that it pursued a case which it knew or should have known was hopeless, or that its lawyers improperly enriched themselves out of public funds.

"The true position is that in 1998 legal aid funding was granted to Hodge Jones & Allen for the purposes of investigating with experts a claim for damages on behalf of many children who were suffering from conditions such as autism following the administration of the MMR vaccine. Mr McCafferty instructed the claimant in 2000 and had the benefit of these investigations. Whilst the possibility of a causal link between MMR and autism was subsequently widely discredited, on the basis of the expert evidence then available there was absolutely no reason to conclude at the time that such claims were hopeless.

The article also stated that the claimant had lost the file for Mr McCafferty's case, and suggested that it had failed to provide information that had been requested by his lawyers. In fact the claimant had already provided a complete copy of all electronic documents on its case management system free of charge to Mr McCafferty's lawyers. It has since managed to locate the original file of documents, and a copy of this has also been sent to those lawyers. Given the passage of time there was nothing untoward about the fact that the file could not be found initially."

The Times' counsel Clara Hamer concurred with the statement and apologised unreservedly for any damage caused to HJA or to its reputation by the article.

Second apology

Patrick Allen, senior partner at HJA, commented: "Our success as a law firm depends on our skill, competence and integrity, so to have these called into question in such a high-profile manner was both disturbing and unacceptable.

"Naturally, I am pleased that this matter is now resolved but maintain that such an article should never have been published in the first place. It was particularly shocking that the article appeared on the front page, and only a matter of weeks after the settlement of our libel claim against the newspaper for the Magdalene Laundries article."

This is the second time in six months HJA has won an apology and damages from The Times newspaper for an article that was eventually found to be untrue. In April, the firm settled with the newspaper following an article concerning the firm's contribution to compensation proposals for Magdalene laundries victims. The firm elected to give the damages it received to charity.

John van der Luit-Drummond is legal reporter for Solicitors Journal