News International considering Armstrong libel costs claim
News International is considering going after scandal-hit cyclist Lance Armstrong for the costs of a libel case dating back to 2006.
The publisher reached an out-of-court settlement, thought to be around £600,000, with the seven-times Tour De France winner after The Sunday Times ran an article linking Armstrong to doping.
Armstrong was represented in that case by Schillings partner John Kelly.
But after the United States Anti-Doping Agency USADA announced it was banning Armstrong for life from the sport and stripping him of his titles, The Sunday Times has revealed that it is considering legal action.
The paper’s in-house lawyer Pia Sarma is weighing up whether to try to recover the costs it incurred and even pursue him for fraud.
However, the newspaper may be at the back of a long queue when it comes to trying to claim back money from Armstrong and sponsors such as Nike have begun to distance themselves from the cyclist. In addition, the costs of bringing a potentially lengthy legal action may outweigh the amount recovered.
A spokeswoman for The Sunday Times confirmed that it is “considering taking action to recover money spent on a libel case Armstrong bought and to pursue him for fraud”.
Readers' comments (3)
Muhammad Haque | 22-Oct-2012 12:14 pm
That a Rupert Murdoch-controlled Media outlet can issue an announcement like the reported one from the SUNDAY TIMES illustrates the very inequality that dominates the English legal system.
Many hundreds of thousands of people across the country are actively prevented by the legal system from pursuing claims that would be a thousand times more meritorious when considered on objective criteria.
The real scandal of English legal system is the fact that English courts continue to remain outside the requirements of due process when it comes to parity of entitlements.
Be it over who gets the grandly and unjustly termed “audience” in court and who is “given permission” to bring an action, the English legal system is riddled with illegalities.
How significant is it that there is hardly any comment by the “concerned” professionals in practice about any of that! Equally telling is the centuries old failure of the “most distinguished” of academic law experts and specialists to examine this individualised and institutionalised injustice of the legal system.
Access to justice!
It is all an Act and hardly anything more than an “act” as a farce.
The multifarious backwardness of the English legal system is the reason why Society remains unjust and why “class” persists with all the anti-social, unjust implications. And costs to lives.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jeremy Young | 23-Oct-2012 3:42 pm
well said Muhammad - the Savile case illustrates just the same problem. Indeed he could only be exposed after he was dead
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-Oct-2012 12:40 pm
John Kelly did not represent Lance Armstrong. According the Schillings own website it was Keith Schilling, Gideon Benaim and Matthew Himsworth. Are they saying it is John Kelly because the Benaim and Himsworth have left?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment