Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 9; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings Citations: [1996] ECHR 41, 18748/91, (1997) 23 EHRR 387, 2 BHRC 110 Links: Worldlii, Bailii Jurisdiction: Human Rights Cited by: … Continue reading Manoussakis and Others v Greece: ECHR 26 Sep 1996
questions as to the meaning of the word ‘defamatory’ and as to the nature of an action for defamation. Judges: Neill LJ Citations: [1996] EWCA Civ 564, [1997] EMLR 139, [1996] 4 All ER 1008 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.662191
An out of time claim for defamation was allowed after late disclosures by the defendant bank in the case. Citations: Times 24-Mar-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1277 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Lloyd’s Bank Plc v Rogers and Another QBD 11-Apr-1996 Claim may be added outside limitation period where based on same facts. … Continue reading Lloyds Bank Plc v Rogers and Another: CA 20 Dec 1996
Articles in consecutive issues of The Sunday Mirror accused the plaintiff of pimping for the KGB, organising sex with prostitutes for visiting British businessmen and then blackmailing them. The defendants pleaded justification. The plaintiff conceded in evidence that he was a persistent womaniser, but denied procuring prostitutes, though a tape of a conversation with a … Continue reading Jones v Pollard, Mirror Group Newspapers Limited and Bailey: CA 12 Dec 1996
A trial judge’s decisions should not normally be set aside unless they constituted a denial of justice to one or other of the parties. Citations: Times 22-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 755 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – McDonald’s Corporation v Steel and Another CA 14-Apr-1994 Defence paragraphs alleging justification were to be struck … Continue reading McDonald’s Corporation and Another v Steel and Morris: CA 17 Oct 1996
Judges: Simon Brown LJ Citations: [1996] EWCA Civ 618, [1997] 1 All ER 655, [1997] EMLR 117 Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1952 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc QBD 28-Oct-1994 Qualified privilege reporting statutory proceedings stays despite doubts on findings. Jonathan Sumption QC said: ‘Historically, qualified privilege … Continue reading Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc: CA 30 Sep 1996
An ex parte order allowing an action by a vexatious litigant is not appealable by the prospective defendant to the action permitted. Such a defendant to proceedings by a vexatious litigant against whom a civil proceedings order had been made was neither a party to the application for leave under section 42(3) nor was entitled … Continue reading Jones v Vans Colina: CA 15 Aug 1996
The claimant had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock. The only substantial evidence was in the form of the notes of interview he said were fabricated by senior officers. His eventual appeal on this basis was not resisted. He now appealed against the striking out of his actions for conspiracy to pervert the … Continue reading Silcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 24 May 1996
No passing off was to be found to have been shown without the public believing that the plaintiff was responsible for the defendant’s services or goods. It was not enough to show only that the defendant was somehow ‘behind’ the defendant. Millet LJ said: ‘Passing off is a wrongful invasion of property vested in the … Continue reading Harrods Ltd v Harrodian School: CA 3 Apr 1996
The defendant agreed to indemnify the insured ‘in respect of all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay as compensation arising out of’ various matters including wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The insurer contended that the use of the word ‘compensation’ excluded awards of exemplary damages. Held: The contention was … Continue reading Lancashire County Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd: CA 3 Apr 1996
Words are defamatory if they allege certain acts irrespective of any quality attributed by the defendant. Citations: Times 15-Jul-1996 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.78501
The plaintiff actor said that an article by the defendant labelling him ugly was defamatory. The defendant denied that the words were defamatory. Held: It is for the jury to decide in what context the words complained of were used and whether they were defamatory in those circumstances. An allegation that an actor was hideously … Continue reading Berkoff v Burchill and and Times Newspapers Limited: CA 31 Jul 1996
Consent to amendment of defence wrongfully refused without finding of mala fides. Citations: Times 05-Mar-1996 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited (2) QBD 23-Apr-1999 Evidence of Reputation Admissible but Limited The plaintiff had brought an action for damages for defamation. The defendant wished to amend its defence to … Continue reading Mackenzie v Business Magazines (UK) Ltd and Others: CA 18 Jan 1996
A quia timet action in a defamation case must specify the precise words which are expected to be used. Citations: Times 28-Feb-1996, [1996] 3 All ER 707 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Affirmed – Best v Charter Medical of England Ltd and Another CA 26-Oct-2001 The Civil Procedure Rules did not alter the previous … Continue reading British Data Management Plc v Boxer Commercial Removals Plc and Another: CA 28 Feb 1996
In a defamation action, it is open to the defendant to justify the imputation by establishing that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff from an objective point of view.Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘But the jury are concerned with whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff from an objective point of view. When … Continue reading Evans v Granada Television: CA 1996
The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt. Held: A defamation was not to be justified in respect of extracts from affirmations in pending lawsuits. The court applied … Continue reading Stern v Piper and Others: CA 21 May 1996
The solicitor, acting in a land purchase transaction for his lay client and the plaintiff, had unwittingly misled the claimant by telling the claimant that the purchasers were providing the balance of the purchase price themselves without recourse to further borrowing when he knew that they were using an overdraft to obtain further funding. The … Continue reading Mothew (T/a Stapley and Co) v Bristol and West Building Society: CA 24 Jul 1996
Husband and wife were involved in a custody dispute. The father made serious but false allegations to the press. She now claimed in defamation, but he relied upon limitation. She said the facts had only become known to her much later. Held: ‘Facts relevant to cause’ referred to those facts necessary to be pleaded but … Continue reading C v Mirror Group Newspapers and Others: CA 21 Jun 1996
Eady J explained the background and legislative purpose of the 1996 Act provisions for offers of amends. Judges: Eady J Citations: [2002] EWHC 2345 (QB), [2003] 1 WLR 2201 Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 2 Cited by: Cited – Murray v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 15-Apr-2014 Application to read unilateral statement in satisfaction of defamation claim. … Continue reading Abu v MGN Ltd (Practice Note): QBD 2002
High Court of Australia – Torts – Joint tortfeasors – Release – Effect of release of one joint tortfeasor on other joint tortfeasors – Effect on common law of s 11 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT) – Whether cause of action against joint tortfeasors one and indivisible. Defamation – Defences – … Continue reading Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd: 10 Dec 1996
The defendant had admitted copying B’s drawings and designs for the creation of a nebulizer. To assist its election on damages, B sought preparation of details of the sales including costs and sale prices. When B also sought statutory damages, M said that having omitted it from the statement of claim, it was too late … Continue reading Brugger v Medic-Aid Ltd: PatC 1996
The judge may disclose to the jury the purpose of a non-party’s involvement as a backer of a party if it is relevant to the case.Simon Brown LJ said as to an allegation that the claim was an abuse of process: ‘The cases appear to suggest two distinct categories of such misuse of process:(i) The … Continue reading Broxton v McClelland and Another: CA 27 Nov 1996
Claim may be added outside limitation period where based on same facts. Citations: Times 11-Apr-1996 Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 35 Citing: Appealed to – Lloyds Bank Plc v Rogers and Another CA 20-Dec-1996 An out of time claim for defamation was allowed after late disclosures by the defendant bank in the case. . . Cited … Continue reading Lloyd’s Bank Plc v Rogers and Another: QBD 11 Apr 1996
A libel case against a French paper was rightly brought in UK despite the small (250 copies nationally and 5 in the plaintiff’s local area (Yorkshire)) circulation here. The Brussels Convention allows a claim for defamation in UK though the main public was abroad. Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘Where English law presumes the publication … Continue reading Shevill and Others v Presse Alliance SA: HL 26 Jul 1996
The plaintiffs, British Coal Corporation, claim damages for libel against the National Union of Mineworkers (Yorkshire area) and also against one of the union’s senior officials. The alleged libel was published in the ‘Yorkshire Miner’, a monthly magazine distributed by the NUM, and the issue in question was that for April, 1992. The defendants said … Continue reading British Coal Corporation v National Union of Mineworkers and Another: QBD 28 Jun 1996
Adjourned application for leave to appeal against order for security for costs of appeal. . .
References: (1996) 141 ALR 1, (1996) 186 CLR 574, (1996) 71 ALJR 131, [1997] Aust Torts Reports 81-412, (1996) 20 Leg Rep 24 Links: Austlii Coram: Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, Gummow JJ High Court of Australia – Torts – Joint tortfeasors – Release – Effect of release of one joint tortfeasor on other joint tortfeasors – … Continue reading Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd; 10 Dec 1996
References: [1997] Aust Torts Reports 81-416, (1996) 41 NSWLR 176, [1996] NSWSC 651 Links: Austlii Coram: Mahoney ACJ, Handley JA, Giles AJA (Supreme Court of New South Wales) Defamation – Damages – Aggravated and general damages – Economic loss with respect to professional standing – Principles relevant to assessment of damages for defamation – Relationship … Continue reading Crampton v Nugawela; 23 Dec 1996
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The claimant seeks the court’s determination of the amount(s) to be paid to him by way of compensation pursuant to s.3(5) of the Defamation Act 1996, following his acceptance of a qualified offer of amends. . .
Proceedings to determine quantum of compensation in a defamation action which has been settled under the Offer of Amends procedure (sections 2 and 3 of the Defamation Act 1996). . .
There was a heated dispute between neighbours, culminating in some generous or perhaps over-generous pruning by the claimant of the defendant’s trees and shrubs on the boundaries. The defendants reported the matter to the police. Both Mr and Mrs Dalziel made oral complaints to the officer who attended upon them. He later returned and Mr … Continue reading Buckley v Dalziel: QBD 3 May 2007
The test to be applied to the question of summary disposal under s.8 of the 1996 Act is the same as that under CPR Part 24. Judges: Early J Citations: [2000] EMLR 681 Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 8, Civil Procedure Rules 24 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Downtex v Flatley CA 2-Oct-2003 … Continue reading James Gilbert Ltd v MGN Ltd: 2000
The defendant appealed dismissal of his defence to an action in defamation. Held: The court proceeded in his absence, discerning two grounds of appeal from the papers. He had suggested that he awaited pro bono representation but was by profession a barrister, and the court did not accept that he could not present his case … Continue reading Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another: CA 3 Mar 2005
The court should be reluctant to attach qualified privilege to ‘reportage’ in circumstances where Parliament, in enacting section 15 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Defamation Act 1996, had not chosen to do so. Judges: Gray J Citations: [2002] All ER (D) 11 Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited … Continue reading English and Another v Hastie Publishing Ltd: 31 Jan 2002
The claimant appealed against summary dismissal of his claim in defamation. Judges: Pill, Thorpe, Mantell LJJ Citations: [2001] EWCA Civ 1030 Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 8(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Budu v The British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Mar-2010 The defendant sought to strike out the claimant’s action in defamation. … Continue reading Mosley and Another v Focus Magazin Verlag Gmbh: CA 29 Jun 2001
Assessment of damages after offer of amends. Held: the Court’s award of damages serves as ‘an outward and visible sign of vindication’ Judges: Eady J Citations: [2003] EWHC 137 (QB), [2004] EMLR 3 Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 3 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017 Slander damages … Continue reading Cleese v Clark and Another: QBD 6 Feb 2003
The claimant sued in defamation over postings in a review of a book on the Amazon web-site and otherwise. The court now heard interim applications. Held: Various elements of the claim were struck out as being without value or prospect of succes, leaving only a request for an injunction aainst the fourth defendant. Judges: Moloney … Continue reading McGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others: QBD 30 Mar 2012
Three MPs had sued in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused them of knowing of the sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham without doing anything about it. Liability now being established, the court set out to assess the damages payable under an offer of amends. Held: The court set starting points of pounds 10,000 … Continue reading Barron and Others v Collins: QBD 6 Feb 2017
The claimant alleged that the defendant, the chief executive of the Law Society had slandered him in a conversation with another senior lawyer. The claimant now sought summary judgment against the claimant, saying that the defence had no realistic prospect of success. Held: The claim was dismissed as an abuse. Whilst the alleged libel was … Continue reading Kordowski v Hudson: QBD 21 Oct 2011
The defendant sought a strike out of the claim in defamation, saying that postings made on its web-sites were fair and accurate reports of court proceedings published contemporaneously. The claimant solicitor had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings by the Law Society. The articles had been removed on the day a complaint was made. Held: … Continue reading Karim v Newsquest Media Group Ltd: QBD 27 Oct 2009
The claimant MP sued the defendant in defamation after he had alleged that the MP had corruptly solicited and received payments and benefits in kind as a reward for parliamentary services rendered. Held: Parliament has protected by privilege an MP against action for defamation arising from his parliamentary activities. A defendant in an action for … Continue reading Hamilton v Al Fayed: HL 23 Mar 2000
Application to fix compensation for defamation. Citations: [2005] EWHC 893 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 3(5) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation, Damages Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.224851
Application to fix compensation under 1996 Act. Citations: [2005] EWHC 892 (QB), [2005] EMLR 553 Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 3(5) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation, Media Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.224852
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege. Held: ‘It is an established principle of the law of libel in this country that a claimant, whether individual or corporate, does … Continue reading Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2): CA 3 Feb 2005
The court looked at the calculation of damages after an offer of amends under the Act by the defendant. Held: Such calculations have to be linked to the very different circumstances of each case. Comparisons with awards after jury trial were unhepful: ‘I am not concerned with hypothesising as to what a particular group of … Continue reading Cleese v Clark: QBD 2003
The claimant was upset by an article published by the defendant making false allegations that he had behaved in a sexually profligate manner many years earlier. When it was substantially repeated he sued. Held: The words were defamatory. An offer of amends had been made, and the court had to ask what effect that had … Continue reading Nail v Jones, Harper Collins Publications Ltd; Nail v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Wade etc: QBD 26 Mar 2004
A posting on a website criticised the competence and integrity of a solicitor. The posting was thought to have been live for about a month. On an application under ss 8 and 9 of the 1996 Act in a claim which was undefended Lloyd-Jones J awarded andpound;10,000. Citations: [2011] EWHC 2140 (QB) Statutes: Defamation Act … Continue reading Farrall v Kordowski: QBD 2011
Judges: Eady J Citations: [2006] EWHC 637 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 3(5) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation, Damages Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.240117
Interpretation of agreement for amends offer. Judges: Eady J Citations: [2006] EWHC 3095 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Contract, Defamation Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.247991
Dispute as to quantification of damages for libel. An offer of amends had been made, but the parties could not agree the sum payable. Judges: Pill LJ, Keene LJ, Moses LJ Citations: [2006] EWCA Civ 540, [2006] 1 WLR 3469, [2006] EMLR 703, [2006] 4 All ER 613 Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 3(5) … Continue reading Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another: CA 16 May 2006
Whether report of decision of a GMC disciplinary panel had statutory qualified privilege. Judges: HHJ Richard Parkes QC Citations: [2020] EWHC 3577 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 15 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.657375
The claimant appealed the award of damages in his claim for defamation. The defendants had variously issued apologies. The claimant had not complained initially as to one publication. Held: In defamation proceedings the damage to feelings is assessed as at the point of assessment, and conduct of the defendant after the publication may aggravate or … Continue reading Nail and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others: CA 20 Dec 2004
Trial of preliminary issues of malice and privilege Judges: Mr Justice Tugendhat Citations: [2012] EWHC 2606 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 15 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.464789
The claimant, having not accepted an offer to make amends, wanted to proceed to a jury trial. To be permitted to do so, he had to seek to establish that the defendants ‘knew or had reason to believe that the statement complained of . . was both false and defamatory of [him]’ Held: The appeal … Continue reading Milne v Express Newspapers: CA 28 May 2004
The claimants had issued defamation proceedings. The defendant said they were out of time, having begun the action more than one year after the alleged publication, but accepted that they had not been prejudiced in their defence. The court refused to extend the period. The lack of prejudice to the defendant was not in itself … Continue reading Steedman, Clohosy, Smith, Kiernan, Newman, Creevy, Anderson v The British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 23 Oct 2001
There should be nothing in any sense ‘rough and ready’ about the assessment of the claimant’s reputation under the offer of amends procedure in the 1996 Act. If compensation is not agreed it should be determined by the court on the same principles as in defamation proceedings. The court will take account of a range … Continue reading Abu v MGN Ltd: QBD 2003
The claimants sought summary relief in their defamation claim against the defendants. Judges: Eady J Citations: [2005] EWHC 1156 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 8 9 10 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.263172
The defendant requested entry of summary judgment against itself under section 8(3) to limit the maximum damages to andpound;10,000. If it went to trial the defendant might argue qualified privilege. To have jurisdiction it had to appear to the court that ‘there is no defence to the claim that has a realistic prospect of success, … Continue reading Milne v Telegraph Ltd: QBD 2001
The claimants, Coomber, claimed in conspiracy, and the defendants claimed in defamation. Various applications were made. The claimants had promoted a development project, but their bankers went into administration. The bank being unable to promise further funds, required repayment of the sums already advanced, and in due course sold the property. The claimants alleged a … Continue reading Ernst and Young Llp and Others v Coomber and Another: QBD 8 Nov 2010
Applications concerning (1) the meanings which the words complained of are capable of bearing and (2) the extent to which, if at all, the claims advanced by the claimant have any real prospect of success having regard to that issue, and the reporting privileges provided for in s 15 of and the Schedule to the … Continue reading Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc and Others: QBD 27 Jun 2017
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendants had published a web page which falsely associated her with a terrorist gang in the 1970s. The defendants now sought a strike out of her claim as an abuse saying that a similar action by her had already been struck out applying Jameel. The defendant … Continue reading Kaschke v Gray and Another: QBD 23 Jul 2010
The claimant had brought multiple actions in defamation against anonymous posters on an online forum. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions. The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs orders. Held: It was arguable that many of the postings made to the forum should … Continue reading Smith v ADVFN Plc and others: QBD 25 Jul 2008
The defendant MEP had had adjourned the claim against her for defamation, claiming that her actions has been as an MEP and therefore exempt from proceedings. The chair of the European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee had received and rejected her request for protection. She now said that she had not been properly advised when settling. … Continue reading Barron and Others v Collins MEP: QBD 22 Dec 2016
The defendant newspaper had made a full apology and offer of amends under the section, and relied upon it as a defence. The claimant sought to impugn that apology, saying that the article had been malicious. He sought disclosure to support the claim. Held: The request was a fishing expedition. To undermine the defence, the … Continue reading Milne v Express Newspapers Ltd: QBD 29 Nov 2002
The claimant solicitor said he had been defamed on the first defendant’s website (‘Solicitors from Hell’) by the second defendant. The first defendant now applied to set aside judgment entered by default. The claimant additionally sought summary disposal under section 8 of the 1996 Act. The second defendant had settled admitting his claims were unjustified. … Continue reading Robins v Kordowski and Another: QBD 22 Jul 2011
The defendant sought to strike out the claimant’s action in defamation. It had reported that the police had withdrawn an employment offer to claimant after doubting his immigration status. Held: The claims should be struck out. The articles were now available on the defendant’s website only by searching for it. A search would reveal three … Continue reading Budu v The British Broadcasting Corporation: QBD 23 Mar 2010
The defendant appealed against the refusal of the Master to strike out the claim in defamation in respect of a post by a third party on his unmoderated blog. The claimant said that the article accused her of an historic association with a terrorist group. As soon as the complaint was made known to him, … Continue reading Kaschke v Gray and Another: QBD 29 Mar 2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had inevitably carried the traffic from the bulletin boards to their own customers. Held: The claims were struck … Continue reading Bunt v Tilley and others: QBD 10 Mar 2006
The newspaper had been sued in defamation, and it had been agreed that a statement would be made. The parties however differed as to the form of statement to be read out in court. Held: The appeal failed: ‘The allegation complained of is that the claimant had given a knowingly false account of her time … Continue reading Associated Newspapers Ltd v Murray: CA 15 May 2015
The company sought relief after the defendant a former senior employee had left but then written to customers alleging fraud by the claimant. Held: ‘ this is as clear a case as there could possibly be that the Defendant’s denial that she published the two letters was, in the case of each, untrue and that … Continue reading Jon Richard Ltd v Gornall: QBD 16 May 2013
An Internet Service Provider who was re-distributing Usenet postings it had received, to its users in general, remained a publisher at common law, even though he was not such within the definitions of the Act, and it was therefore liable in defamation after failing to remove a posting which it then continued to distribute after … Continue reading Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited: QBD 26 Mar 1999
The claimant complained of an article on the defendant’s web-site. The defendant offered an unqualified offer of amends. The court was asked to settle an amount of compensation. Though the article was removed within a few hours and upon receipt of the complaint, the claimant said that it had generated repeats of the libel. Held: … Continue reading Bowman v MGN Ltd: QBD 26 Apr 2010
The parties had compromised a defamation claim with an offer of amends, but the claimant wished to read out a statement in accordance with the rules, being unhappy with the apology offered. The defendant objected, saying that she had no entitlement to make such an application, this being a defendant’s right. Held: The court rejected … Continue reading Winslet v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 3 Nov 2009
The claimant police officer sought damages from the defendants who had published a book alleging that he had been corrupt. The defendants claimed privilege under Reynolds and the 1996 Act. Held: The defence of qualified privilege failed. Gray J [2006] EWHC 1756 (QB), [2007] 1 All ER 622 Bailii Defamation Act 1996 England and Wales … Continue reading Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others: QBD 13 Jul 2006
Applications were launched with in defamation proceedings to seek to recover damages for parties who had not previously been part of the proceedings. Held: The amendments were refused. The new claimants were now out of time, and it was clear that they had taken steps before the limitation period had expired, but chose to pursue … Continue reading Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 19 Dec 2007
The court considered the availability of qualified privilege for reporting of statements made in parliament and the actionable meaning of the article, which comprised in part those statements and in part other factual material representing the newspaper’s own investigative findings. Challenge to the so-called ‘repetition rule’ which generally applies to reported speech in defamation proceedings. … Continue reading Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd: CA 30 Apr 2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant company offering internet search facilities. The words complained of had been published in a blog, and in comments published on the blog. Held: Jurisdiction should be declined. Any claim would fail. An ISP which performs no more than a passive role in facilitating postings on the … Continue reading Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd: QBD 2 Mar 2012
The claimant appealed against refusal of the Master to extend the 12 month limitation period in his proposed defamation claim. The allegations related to a dispute at an Aslef barbecue, and later of forgery. The claimant was a former General Secretary of the union, and the defendant the current General Secretary. Earlier allegations had been … Continue reading Brady v Norman: QBD 26 May 2010
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in a referral letter sent to a third party. She had been dismissed from a non-teaching post after having been found using school computers to access pornography. The letter had reported the findings to the third party a ‘relevant employer’ under the Regulations. The letter had suggested misbehaviour … Continue reading Henderson v London Borough of Hackney and Another: QBD 5 Jul 2010
The claimant sought to have disapplied the limitation period in his defamation claim. The claimant said that in the case of Cain, the Steedman case had not been cited, and that the decisions were incompatible, and that Cain was to be prefered. Held: The appeal failed. The two cases could be reconciled. Considerations in defamation … Continue reading Brady v Norman: CA 9 Feb 2011
The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a search engine might have for a defamation pointed to by its results pages. Held: As to … Continue reading Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others: QBD 16 Jul 2009
Evidence of Reputation Admissible but Limited The plaintiff had brought an action for damages for defamation. The defendant wished to amend its defence to include allegations that the plaintiff had courted litigation by his action. Held: A judge assessing damages should be able see the reputation claimed to be damaged, and the defendant had to … Continue reading Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited (2): QBD 23 Apr 1999
The claimant alleged defamation. The defendant offered to make amends but wished to maintain his denial that the statement itself was defamatory. Held: An offer of amends required acceptance that the statement had been defamatory. A statement could not be defamatory only in the abstract. Tugendhat J [2008] EWHC 2552 (QB), Times 10-Dec-2008 Bailii Defamation … Continue reading Club La Costa (UK) Plc v Gebhard and others: QBD 24 Oct 2008
The claimant sought damages for an article in the defendant’s newspaper, a review of her book which said she had falsely claimed to have interviewed artists including the review author and that the claimant allowed interviewees control over what was said. The claimant sought to have struck out the defence of fair comment. Held: A … Continue reading Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd: QBD 12 Nov 2009
The respondent hosted a blogs platform. One of its user’s blogs was said by the appellant to have been defamatory. On discovery the material had been removed quickly. The claimant now appealed against his claim being struck out. He argued as to: (1) whether there is an arguable case that Google Inc was a publisher … Continue reading Tamiz v Google Inc: CA 14 Feb 2013
Application to read unilateral statement in satisfaction of defamation claim. Held: It follows from the terms of section 3 of the 1996 Act that the court should not regard as normal an oral hearing of submissions by a defendant that a claimant should be refused permission to make a unilateral statement. That would involve further … Continue reading Murray v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 15 Apr 2014
Solicitors who unreasonably commence proceedings may be subject to a wasted costs order, but there should be no award of costs against a solicitor solely because he acted without a fee. An award of costs should not be made against a solicitor who had acted for a client in a defamation action which was lost, … Continue reading Tolstoy-Miloslavsky v Aldington: CA 27 Dec 1995
Fair Coment on Political Activities The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the claimant’s status as a politician. Held: The appeal failed (Lords Hope … Continue reading Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: HL 28 Oct 1999
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation. Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being represented under a conditional fee agreement. The court considered that the amount of costs being incurred served to act … Continue reading King v Telegraph Group Ltd: CA 18 May 2004
The defendant claimed absolute immunity in respect of communications sent by him to the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by the plaintiff, a Queen’s Counsel. Held: Initial communications sent to the secretary of the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by a barrister did not attract absolute privilege, since they were not yet a step in … Continue reading Lincoln v Daniels: CA 1961
The claimants appealed refusal of an order restricting comparative advertising materials for the defendant’s competing veterinary medicine. The claimant said that the rule against prior restraint applicable to defamation and other tort proceedings did not apply to trade mark infringement. Held: The rule against prior restraint applied to actions involving reputation, but did not apply … Continue reading Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd and others v Vetplus Ltd: CA 20 Jun 2007
Bayley J said: Upon the great point, viz. whether it is a good defence to an action for slander for a defendant to show he heard it from another, and at that time named the author, I am of the opinion that it is not’ and ‘the law will not permit a man to recover … Continue reading McPherson v Daniels: 1829
(High Court of Australia) ‘It seems to us that, in a case where there is no qualified privilege to report or repeat the defamatory statements of others, the whole cohesion of the law of defamation would be destroyed, if it were permissible merely to plead and prove that the defamatory statement was made by another; … Continue reading Uren v John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd: 2 Jun 1966
The defendant solicitor appealed refusal of an order to strike out the claim. The claimant alleged breach of trust. The claimant asserted a fraudulent witholding of information to suggest that any breach of trust had happened. The defendant said that the claimant had sufficient knowledge independent of any concealment to begin the limitation period. Held: … Continue reading Collins v Brebner: CA 19 Jun 1997
The claimant, a former Anglican priest, sued in defamation. The defendant argued that the claim was non-justiciable since it would require the court to adjudicate on matters of faith and religious doctrine. Held: The claim could not be heard. Gray J said: ‘It is well established . . that the court will not venture into … Continue reading Blake v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 31 Jul 2003
(New York Court of Appeals) A report published at a press conference on 16 December 1996 was placed on the internet the same day. A claim was filed over a year later. Held: The limitation period started when the report was first uploaded onto the website and did not begin anew each time the website … Continue reading Firth v State of New York: 2 Jul 2002
The plaintiffs appealed against refusal of orders striking out the defences of justification to their libel action. Held: The words complained of bore an accusation of money laundering. A plea of justification based upon a reasonable belief in the claimant’s criminality, could not be established by simply stating that publication had been a repetition of … Continue reading Shah and Another v Standard Chartered Bank: CA 2 Apr 1998
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment against the respondent in the US for punitive damages, but these had not been collected, and … Continue reading Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another: SC 27 Jul 2011
Two company directors sued Swiss bankers who had responded to enquiries from the police in London. The charges which followed had been dismissed, and the directors sued in defamation, seeking to rely upon the materials sent to the police. Held: The appeal succeeded. There is no implied undertaking as to the use of disclosed documents … Continue reading Mahon and Another v Rahn and Others (1): CA 12 Jun 1997
