'WORLD'S WORST TENNIS PLAYER'

This story is a classic. I recently posted an article that suggested losing in the qualifying rounds of an ATP event is not the end of the dream so to speak as 'Lucky losers' have been known to walk away with thousands.

This story beats any other story you will ever read regarding a 'battling tennis player'.

'World's worst' tennis player loses again

When Robert Dee was described as the worst professional tennis player in the world, he didn't take it lying down.

By Stephen Adams

11:36AM BST 28 Apr 2010

Instead the young Briton resolved to take legal action against dozens of newspapers and websites to defend his name and reputation.

With a tenacity that has kept him going on the court - through a record-breaking run of 54 straight-set losses on the international professional circuit - he sent out a string of legal letters demanding apologies and damages.

More than 30 news outlets capitulated.

Dee duly trumpeted his successby posting their cheques for thousands of pounds of damages on his personal website.

However, he had not reckoned on The Daily Telegraph refusing to back down - despite a risk that a libel trial could cost the paper £500,000 in costs alone, at the very least.

As a result, the case went before a High Court judge who has now confirmed that the evidence supplied by the newspaper was sufficient to justify the description "world's worst".

The paper printed a short front-page story on Dee on 23 April 2008 in conjunction with a fuller article in the Sport section the same day.

The front-page, 82-word piece, began: "A Briton ranked as the worst professional tennis player in the world after 54 defeats in a row has won his first match."

It went on: "Robert Dee, 21, of Bexley, Kent, did not win a single match during his first three years on the circuit, touring at an estimated cost of £200,000.

"But his dismal run ended at the Reus tournament near Barcelona as he beat an unranked 17-year-old, Arzhang Derakshani, 6-4, 6-3. Dee lost in the second round."

Dee sued for defamation, arguing the piece exposed him to ridicule and could damage his ability to work in the tennis world in the future.

His barrister pointed out that Dee had won professional games on a Spanish domestic circuit during his 54-match losing streak on the international circuit.

But The Daily Telegraph maintained it was justified in publishing the story because the articles were not defamatory and true.

David Price, for the Telegraph, argued that just as it could not be defamatory to report that a player had lost one match, so it could not be defamatory to report accurately that he had lost a large number on the trot.

Mrs Justice Sharp ruled: "The incontestably true facts are that the Claimant [Robert Dee] did lose 54 matches in a row in straight sets in his first three years on the world ranking ITF / ATP tournaments on the international professional tennis circuit, and that this was the worst ever run."

She continued that there was "no additional obligation" on the paper to prove that Dee "is objectively the worst professional tennis player in the world, in terms of his playing skills".

That characterisation was "simply a consequence of his unprecedented record of defeats", she stated.

His wins on the Spanish national circuit did "not detract from the fact that he holds the longest record for consecutive defeats based on the offical world ranking system," she added.

She concluded that there could be "no rational conclusion" other than for the paper's case to succeed on the basis of justification - that the facts were true.

While weightier libel cases have made the news in recent months, the legal battle demonstrates how newspapers can be held to ransom by litigants spurred on by lawyers promising to work on a "no win, no fee" basis. They are known in the trade as conditional fee arrangements.

Keith Mathieson, a solicitor who was acting for Reuters when it was threatened by Dee's solicitors, told the House of Commons' Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in 2008 that the news agency felt "it had really no option but to settle because it was faced with potential costs of trial for this comparatively unimportant libel case of £1.2 million."

Reuters was asked to pay Dee's costs of £250,000, compared with its own legal costs of £31,000.

In a later memorandum from Dee's father to the Select Committe, Alan Dee pointed out that their legal action was "only partially funded with a 50 per cent conditional fee agreement".

#####################################################
So there you go, sometimes it pays to be a 'loser'...........