Michael Broadbent has won a libel victory against Random House, publishers of The Billionaire's Vinegar.
The case, brought by law firm Russell Jones & Walker, centred on the book by Benjamin Wallace, which tells the long-running story of the Jefferson bottles.
Michael Broadbent was head of Christie's wine department from 1966 to 1992, and is Decanter's longest-running columnist.
'The book made allegations which suggested that Mr Broadbent had behaved in an unprofessional manner in the way in which he had auctioned some of these bottles and that his relationship and dealings with Hardy Rodenstock, who discovered the original collection, was suspected of being improper,' Russell Jones & Walker said in a statement.
Random House apologised unreservedly for making the allegations and accepted that they were untrue. It has given an undertaking not to repeat the allegations and paid Mr Broadbent undisclosed damages.
Sarah Webb, head of Russell Jones & Walker's defamation department, who acted for Broadbent, said, 'The Billionaire's Vinegar made highly damaging claims about my client that seriously compromised both his professional and personal reputation.
'We are delighted that Random House has today accepted that these allegations are totally without foundation and avoided the need to proceed to a full trial.
'My client is relieved that the good name he has built up over many years as one of the country's leading wine experts has been fully restored.'
Random House will now be unable to publish the book in its present form in the UK - nor in the US, Webb told decanter.com.
'The English courts can only cover publications in England, so there is no jurisdiction in America.
'But if they publish in the US they will have to make sure that no copies of the book get to the UK, and as it is impossible to guarantee that, any re-issue of the book in America would be repeating the libel.'
Webb dismissed an accusation by Wallace that this was a case of 'libel tourism' - that is, choosing to sue in a country with libel laws weighted in the plaintiff's favour.
'This is not libel tourism. Michael Broadbent lives here. The book is fully available here, and has already sold 2000 copies.'
Have your say... To post your comment on this story, email us at news@decanter.com
It is unfortunate that Michael Broadbent has chosen to blame the
messenger, and doubly so that he is blaming the messenger for
something the messenger is not actually saying. I have never felt that
Mr. Broadbent acted in bad faith, and contrary to his allegations, I
maintain that The Billionaire's Vinegar does not suggest that he did.
In any case, while I believe that my book speaks for itself, I do want
to point out a few things: I was never personally sued by Mr.
Broadbent, and I am not a party to the settlement or apology
negotiated by him with Random House. Because of the U.K.'s notoriously
plaintiff-friendly libel laws and conditional fee system, the company
made a business decision to settle with Mr. Broadbent in order to
contain its legal costs and exposure in the U.K. Anyone who doubts
this need only compare the specific claims in Mr. Broadbent's legal
complaint with the vagueness and generalities of the settlement
agreement. Since Mr. Broadbent's claim was always confined to the
book's availability in the U.K., the settlement does not prevent the
book from being published, in unaltered form, anywhere else. So, while
Random House has agreed not to distribute the book in the U.K., it
will continue to be available, as written, in the United States, where
the libel laws provide greater protection for freedom of speech and
where British libel judgments are almost never enforceable, thanks to
the First Amendment. Benjamin Wallace
Congratulations to Michael Broadbent! You're the man! John Trezevant, Belgium
Where Ben's argument is implausible is in the fact that the loser, in UK, pays the legal fees of the winner. If it hadn't been a rock solid case, my father would not have risked financial loss. As it was, the legal fees would have been huge already. If the Publisher thought they had any chance of winning they would have, presumably, gone ahead with the case because they wouldn't have had any legal costs if they had won. They would have had all their legal costs paid. So, the fact that they settled out of court can only means that they knew that the book was totally indefensible.
Also, it easy to say that anyone can compare the specific claims in the legal complaint when he knows well that the legal complaint hasn't been made public. Bartholomew Broadbent
I see Mr Wallace's somewhat ungracious comment above. If a message
is capable of being read as libellous is not the author of that
message responsible for his use of language, even, perhaps especially,
if he does not intend to libel? Would it not be better to apologise
for any ambiguity and correct it rather than seek to defend it in the
way which Mr Wallace does here? Timothy Hartley
I don't want to get into a legal argument on a wine website but I disagree with Michael Benjamin's perspective on UK vs. US libel laws. I see no problem with them being weighted in favour of the plaintiff and think the onus should be on the author to back up their statements with evidence. I think it is unfair to expect a person to be able to challenge each and every story that may be published about them as is the case in the US. James Small
I agree with Mr. Wallace's summary that Broadbent's reputation was not maligned in his book. Until his lawsuit brought his complaint to the world's attention, I didn't conclude he was complicit. I still see him as the expert he always was. Tom Marquardt
I just finished the book this past weekend, and it was quite a pleasant read. I have been following this case in both Decanter and The Wine Spectator for years and I believe the book summarizes the case in an interesting and very enjoyable way. I never felt that Mr. Broadbent's reputation was tarnished and I still respect his remarkable judgement of fine wine. I am sorry that these parties did not discuss things before the case blew up. I wonder if Mr. Broadbent or his lawyers actually read the book in it's entirety. I would love to see a movie based on the book as it was very entertaining.
Out of curiosity how is the book to be rewritten to be sold in the UK? I Filanti, Medicine Hat, Canada
I bought this book (in the UK) when it was published but like so many books, it's just sitting on the shelf waiting its turn. In part I'd been waiting to see whether this fascinating case would decide the matter for me: should I bump it up the reading list or chuck it in the (recycling) bin?
This is another of those not altogether satisfactory outcomes when a pre-trial settlement leaves one wondering. I've huge respect for Michael Broadbent, who is a giant in the UK fine wine trade, and have spent many enjoyable hours reading his informative (and often hilarious) tasting notes. Wallace on the other hand, and with no disrespect intended, is a guy looking for a story. But if, as others have commented, Broadbent comes well out of the book anyway, why was a legal case even initiated? It makes Broadbent at the least look over-sensitive to his portrayal and too eager to discourage legitimate investigation of some of the (allegedly) murkier aspects of the trade in old and rare wine. The obvious rejoinder to Bartholomew's Broadbent's comments is to ask: why, if Michael had a 'rock solid case', did he not insist upon pursuing it, knowing the costs would fall to the other party? The fact is, out of court settlements always leave things hanging and never quite satisfy the skeptics.
So shall I read my first edition of the book or not?!
More importantly perhaps I do hope this matter hasn't been too much of a distraction for Mr Broadbent and that we may yet look forward to a fourth edition of Vintage Wine in a couple of years' time. Matthew Britnell, East Sussex
An interesting sidebar to this story would be a quick overview of the U.S. definition of "libel" contrasted with that of the U.K. In the United States, a plaintiff must prove not only that a person's 'good reputation' has been ruined, but that the alleged libel was 'malicious.' Is this true in England? Maile Field
Forget this legal mumbo jumbo. Mr. Broadbent's career speaks for itself. I had lunch with the chap at the Culinary Institute of America in 1997 and his integrity, enthusiasm and knowledge was clear. Rick Schofield, CWE, Port Ewen, NY
Register on decanter.com absolutely free for news alerts delivered direct to your email inbox, and our fortnightly newsletter with advance notice of what’s coming up in Decanter magazine, offers, competitions and more.
PLUS registration is a one-stop shop for the Decanter magazine Archive and Decanter Fine Wine Tracker.
