The dismissal of David Beckham’s libel action against the prostitute Irma Nici has been widely reported as a ‘failure of his libel claim’. This has resulted in many members of the public believing that as a result of his case being ‘thrown out’ and having ‘failed’ it follows the allegations are true and that he did in fact cheat on his wife with a prostitute.

Now one cannot expect the general public to be au fait with the differences in US/UK libel laws but the salient point in this particular libel action, as I said on Daybreak back in September last year was that under US law, in order for Beckham to succeed, as a ‘public figure’ he would have to prove that the publisher acted with ‘malice’. Malice in this context means that the publisher knew that the statements was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements it was publishing. This significant condition was established in the case of the New York Times v Sullivan. This always imposes a heavy burden of proof on the plaintiff and is something that is very difficult to prove meaning successful libel actions by public figures in the US rarely succeed. In England ‘malice’ only needs to be proved if the Defendant publisher is claiming a defence of fair comment or qualified privilege. It follows that if the same allegations had been published in England and a proper fact checking exercise had not been undertaken by the publisher and neither had they sought comment from Beckham prior to publication, he would have had his victory in court and public vindication.

Unfortunately for Beckham the jurisdiction of his libel action was not in his favour, and his libel ‘failure’ in this case combined with the fact that he didnt sue for libel regarding the Rebecca Loos allegations is now being used by many, who with respect, I believe are far too quick to jump the gun, to claim that the Irma Nici allegations are true.

For many reasons, I am not at liberty to go in depth about the details of any previous allegations, nor the merits or indeed existence of any such previous legal action. However, I believe Beckham fully in this scenario and can’t help but empathise with the quandary he has found himself in, as a result of historic decisions and present legal hurdles.

As a previous claimant libel lawyer to many high profile figures and now in my role as an advisor to many newspapers including the Evening Standard, Metro, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Telegraph, I am often called gamekeeper turned poacher (unsuprisingly by many of my previous colleagues who claim I have turned to the ‘dark side’). I am a fervent supporter of free speech and I do believe libel reforms are necessary in the UK however I also think the example of David Beckham’s case illustrates that in some jurisdictions printing untrue and unfair statements about an individual is considered the cost of having a society and legal system that values free speech. I cannot fully accept nor do I agree with that sentiment and neither do I believe it would be in the interests of our society or for the greater good.

Where does that leave libel reforms in England one may ask? The answer is not simple, but in my opinion it is not just libel laws that need reforming but equally as importantly privacy laws that urgently need clarifying (in my opinion by statute) and the Rottweiler use of super injunctions needs to be put on a very tight leash and indeed considering what they were original designed to protect, it is possible that the latter needs to be put firmly back into the dog house only brought out for genuinely private matters or where there is a strong public interest that the disclosures should be kept from the public domain (again going back to their original purpose) rather than to protect the wealthy, powerful and more often that not corrupt (be it morally or commercially) from burying their sins and making a mockery of the law by using it as a public relations tool.

Qu: Is it possible to reclaim the cost of my telephone calls which were made in favour of Mary, and were not used in the final selection of the singer to be evicted it was the judges who decided.The presenter throughout the show said that the public vote was the only way a singer could be kept in and Simon changed the rules.
Please look into this as my faith in television has hit rock bottom and I will not be watching xfactor again.

A: The last series of X Factor was one of the most controversial to date. From ‘autotunegate’ to ‘Gamugate’ to various ‘Cherylgates’ (malariagate, ‘no longer the nation’s sweetheart’ gate) the popular television show was mired in controversy last year. One of the biggest X factor scandals involved the popular Mary Byrne being voted off by the Judges in the semi finals in a sing off with Cheryl’s little soldier (and importantly one of Simon’s favourite acts) Cher Lloyd. This outraged fans and resulted in further reporting that X Factor was a fix. The main complaint by fans was that contestants were asked to perform in a sing off and the JUDGES voted as to who they wanted to save. In previous series of the show at this crucial stage it was always went to the public vote and quite simply the contestant who had more of the public vote would remain in the competition. Fans took to the internet to express their outrage on twitter and X Factor blogs and many took it one step further and made formal complaints to the regulatory body Ofcom. I was asked to comment on this matter by Channel 4 news. As a big X Factor fan I watch the show almost without fail and as a geeky lawyer I do pay attention to the details especially because I also vote on the show (for Rebecca Ferguson this year FYI) therefore adding to the coffers of Mr Cowell et al. Now, the key point here in terms of whether or not an Ofcom complaint could be upheld is whether or not X Factor had materially misled viewers in terms of the rules of the show and importantly the impact and significance of viewers paying votes on the outcome of the show. The lovely Dermot during the course of the pre semi final show and the semi final itself chanted like a mantra that viewers were the ones deciding who would go through to the final. So you can imagine the hoo ha when the sing off took place and it went to the Judges to decide between Mary and Cher. In my view the paying public had every right to be furious. Section 2 of the Ofcom code states that producers must have clear rules on public votes and must communicate them to the public. By materially misleading viewers Ofcom would have a right to rap the producers knuckles. In this instance Ofcom felt that viewers had not been materially misled and that ITV’s rules stated that a combination of eliminations based on the public vote and the Judges’ decision were part of the show’s process and that this would be at ITV and the producers discretion. Hmmm that catch all ‘producers discretion’. Something that in itself should be used with discretion and a nod to the fact that it is the paying public who make these types of show and therefore should never be treated like anyone’s fool. Although it may seem impossible now you never know when the X Factor could become the Z Factor (frankly I would be disappointed as I genuinely love the show but I hope my readers and also any X Factor chiefs get the point I am making) So in answer to your question, I am afraid there is no chance of you getting a complaint to Ofcom upheld or your money back but I fully appreciate your irritation and annoyance. Here’s to the next series of X Factor, the tears, the tantrums and the trivia.

The term ‘Frenemy’ is a portmanteau of friend and enemy and a word often used to describe an enemy who is disguised as a friend, or an ally who is actually a competitor/rival. Frenemies can be found in personal, political and commercial relationships. Recent exposes in the Daily Telegraph confirmed what most of us already knew, that the Liberal Democrats and Conservative Party are not only uncomfortable bedfellows in an awkward coalition government but a perfect example of political frenemies. Other high profile examples of frenemies include Saudia Arabia and Iran, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Vince Cable and probably all the Conservative members of the Coalition government and in more popular culture, Serena Van der Woodsen and Blair Waldorf in Gossip Girl and Susan Mayer and (now deceased) Edie Britt in Desperate Housewives.

But how do we identify frenemies in our lives and how do we deal with them once we know who they are? This is an issue that I am working on with a few of my coaching clients who either commercially or personally have found themselves entangled with emotionally draining frenemies.

Frenemies can be identified by how they make you feel when spend time with them and by reading in between the lines of what they seem to be saying to you and what they are actually saying to you. They are often competitive and insecure individuals and can be Machiavellian in their tactics. Ultimately a frenemy is someone that, for whatever reason, does not want the best for you. Sometimes it can be hard to identify a frenemy because they often have many positive characteristics and there may be many ‘pluses’ about your interaction with them, otherwise they wouldnt be a friend (or rather frenemy) and they would be an outright enemy and someone you would be likely to avoid at all costs.

After breaking off an unhappy and emotionally damaging relationship a client of mine regained her self esteem and transformed into a vibrant, confident individual who literally glowed and suddenly found herself on the receiving end of alot of male attention. She simultaneously found herself realising that one of her best friends of a decade was actually a frenemy. In this instance whilst my client was down trodden and in an unhappy relationship her frenemy enjoyed the dynamic of the relationship and feeling she had the upper hand but once single and having found her ‘mojo’ my client proved a competitor to the frenemy (particularly in relation to the dating scene) thus causing the frenemy’s true colours to come out. Their friendship ended fairly abruptly and dramatically but my client has never been happier as she now knows that she has true friends in her life who are embracing and celebrating her new found confidence as they want the best for her, in stark contrast to her one time best frenemy.

A good friend of mine was utterly perplexed (and distraught) to realise that the friend sharing his office space with whom he was also engaging in business deals with was actually bad mouthing him behind his back and also doing everything possible to avoid paying his way fully in the office. His motivation it appears was borne from jealousy and competitiveness over the fact that my friend’s profits in his business almost quadrupled his frenemy and despite wanting to benefit from my friend’s succcess he couldnt prevent his jealousy from taking hold making him a truly toxic frenemy. In this situation my friend had to extricate himself slowly and delicately due to legal and financial considerations as well as political issues as they moved amongst the same circle of entrepreneurs and acquaintances.

For many people the New Year brings a time of reflection and change. Often we find ourselves writing New Year’s resolutions, having a makeover and decluttering our homes. Whilst engaging in these processes I highly recommend decluttering your life of any frenemies. After all with toxic friends like that, who needs enemies…

Q: I am hirsute metrosexual male who after years of being called gorilla boy, werewolf and various other insults acted upon the advice of my sisters (who claim women prefer their men hair free) and went to have my back and chest waxed at their favourite waxing salon. Now I admit there was a lot of hair to be waxed but I think that the wax was too hot as it was truly one of the most painful experiences of my life. Not only did I have a terrible rash afterwards and spots but a couple of weeks later my skin appears discoloured with red marks. I am worried I look worse than when I was hairy and want to know how to go if I should try and claim a refund and perhaps compensation for the injuries and damage I have suffered.

A: Waxing is indeed largely an eye wateringly painful experience and whilst there are some waxing boutiques that claim to provide pain free waxing (I have tested some of these and whilst marginally less painful it is hardly a painless and/or pleasant experience) waxing remains to be a painful experience with after effects including red, sore skin, spots, ingrown hairs and other such pleasantries.

And in the case of a waxing virgin (or even someone who regularly waxes but hasn’t done for a while) waxing can be extremely painful to the extent that the recipient can wonder if they are in fact the waxing is being carried out properly. However the therapist does have a duty of care to warn you of the side effects and advise you not to take a hot shower or bath for 24 hours after the waxing session and to use specific after care products to minimise the side effects.

You mentioned the name of the establishment in the longer version of your letter and having investigated I have found out that they are not only reputable but their therapists are all well trained and qualified by recognised industry associations. Your discomfort and the side effects sound to me (and to a dear friend of mine who is a v. well known and highly regarded beauty therapist who regularly carries out waxing treatments) to be par for the norm The red marks could be the pigmentation of the skin underneath all the hair and/or could be a side effect that will fade in time but you could seek the advice of a dermatologist on this. Whilst a waxing therapist does owe a duty of care to their customer and can be liable in negligence for breaching that duty of care it doesn’t sound to me as though that has been the case here. Eye wateringly painful followed by strange rashes and lumps and bumps, welcome to the world of waxing…I’d say stick to the hirsute look, quite a few of us ladies love a human gorilla…

Do you have a legal question you’d like answered? Email Ask Ambi