Proof of corruption not needed for bribe In establishing that money was paid as an improper inducement or bribe, proof of corruptness or a corrupt motive was unnecessary. When a court looks at a decision of a judge at first instance, the court stressed the need to look at the objective facts and the overall … Continue reading Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (‘The Ocean Frost’): CA 1985
Application to strike out defence claim of justification and for abuse. Judges: The Honourable Mrs Justice Collins Rice Citations: [2021] EWHC 79 (QB) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – Sivier v Riley CA 14-May-2021 Whether the defendant could rely on the defences of truth, honest opinion, and publication on matter … Continue reading Riley v Sivier: QBD 20 Jan 2021
A strike out was sought alleging gross delay and an abuse of process. Held: The strike out was granted both as to the claim and counter claims.Hamblen J discussed first the issues surrounding delay: ‘In summary, the authorities provide the following guidance: (1) There are no hard and fast rules. The court has to make … Continue reading Panamax Star Owners and or Bailees of The Cargo of The Ship) v Auk (Owners of The Ship): AdCt 18 Dec 2013
The claimant sought damages for libel in an internal email written by her manager, accusing her of being a compulsive liar. The email had not been disclosed save in Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the claimant sought permission to use the email and to extend the limitation period saying it had been withheld. Held: There had … Continue reading McBride v The Body Shop International Plc: QBD 10 Jul 2007
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for resolution of VTB’s tort claims, and nor that there was a proper basis for piercing the corporate veil. … Continue reading VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others: SC 6 Feb 2013
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 court was asked as to when it is appropriate to order costs on an indemnity basis. Waller LJ said: ‘The question will always be: is there something in the conduct of the action or the circumstances of the case which takes the case out of the norm in a way which justifies an order … Continue reading Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden and Johnson (A Firm): CA 12 Jun 2002
Craigdallie stated settled law: ‘My Lords, I disclaim altogether any right in this or any other civil court of this realm to discuss the truth or reasonableness of any of the doctrines of this or any other religious association, or to say whether any of them are or are not based on a just interpretation … Continue reading General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v Overtoun: HL 1904
A Hindu religious sect, constituted as a charity, had split into two factions. Held: The court had jurisdiction to order that the assets of the sect should be divided under the powers in the Act, and held upon separate trusts for the two factions. The court declined to adjudicate as to which group was correctly … Continue reading Varsani and others v Jesani, Patel and Her Majesty’s Attorney-General: CA 3 Apr 1998
The claimant sought an order to restrain anticipated defamatory comments and evidence to be given to an employment tribunal. Held: It could not be said as the claimant asserted that dfeences were bound to fail, and no determination should be made before trial. Nor were the claimant’spleadings yet to the required standard. Judges: Sharp J … Continue reading Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others: QBD 11 Apr 2013
The defendants requested a preliminary ruling that the words complained of in the claimant’s action were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. Held: Some of the pleaded meanings were not supported, but others were clearly defamatory, and should not be struck out. Nor could it properly be said that there had been no substantial … Continue reading Caborn-Waterfield v Gold and Others: QBD 11 Mar 2013
The parties competed in providing employment law services. The claimant complained of slanderous comments said to have been made by the defendant in discussions with a firm of solicitors seeking to select a firm. The claimant now appealed against the striking out of its action as ‘not worth the candle’. No damage was pleaded, and … Continue reading Citation Plc v Ellis Whittam Ltd: CA 8 Mar 2013
The claimant said that the defendant, in its Top Gear programme in a review of its car, caused it damage through malicious falsehood and defamation. They appealed against a finding that the words used were incapable of bearing the defamatory meanings complained of. Held: The appeal was dismissed. Though there were falsehoods in the programme, … Continue reading Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 5 Mar 2013
Judges: Sir Terence Etherton Ch, Rix, Lewison LJJ Citations: [2013] EWCA Civ 149 Links: Bailii Statutes: Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors CA 15-Feb-2011 The claimant sought protection under the Act from his former employers’ behaviour in making repeated allegations against him. He … Continue reading Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors and Others (No 2): CA 5 Mar 2013
The claimant was involved in defamation proceedings against two major newspapers. The defendant was said to have repeated the story alleged to be defamatory with additional allegations of criminal behaviour in Tweets and in his blog. Judges: Eady J Citations: [2013] EWHC 145 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Jurisdiction: … Continue reading Cruddas v Adams: QBD 4 Feb 2013
Citations: [2013] EWCA Civ 19 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Elvanite Full Circle Ltd v AMEC Earth and Environmental (UK) Ltd TCC 14-Jun-2013 Following the proncipal judgment there were disputes as to the basis of assessment of costs and the interaction between the existing costs management order (which approved the … Continue reading Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 28 Jan 2013
The court discussed an appeal against a case management decision. Held: Lewison LJ said: ‘It has been said more than once in this court, it is vital for the Court of Appeal to uphold robust fair case management decisions made by first instance judges.’ Judges: Lewison, Mummery, Jackson LJJ Citations: [2012] EWCA Civ 1667 Links: … Continue reading Mannion v Ginty: CA 28 Nov 2012
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
The defendant sought to have struck out the claim for defamation based on the defendant’s ‘Homes from Hell’ TV programme. Held: The pleaded meanings failed, and an application to amend the particulars was refused. The action was struck out.In the course of the case, the claimant a litigant in person had suggested a duty on … Continue reading O’Dwyer v ITV Plc: QBD 30 Nov 2012
Eady J considered the principles in construing a compromise agreement: ‘The modern approach is to apply ordinary principles of construction to such agreements in seeking to determine the intention of the parties and, in particular, that of the relevant claimant.’ Judges: Eady J Citations: [2012] EWHC 3137 (QB) Links: Bailii Cited by: Cited – Gladman … Continue reading Ansari v Knowles and Others: QBD 8 Nov 2012
The parties, former partners in a limited liability partnership providing investment funds management, had been involved in protracted and bitter litigation. The appellant now challenged the award of indemnity costs. Judges: Arden, Tomlinson, Davis LJJ Citations: [2012] EWCA Civ 843, [2012] WLR (D) 183, [2013] Bus LR 186, [2013] 1 Costs LR 35, [2013] 1 … Continue reading F and C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd and Others v Barthelemy and Another: CA 22 Jun 2012
The word ‘calculated’ as used in s.2 of the 1952 Act meant ‘likely’: accepting that, in that context, that meant something less than ‘more likely than not’. Judges: Tugendhat J Citations: [2010] EWHC 2572 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1952 2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd … Continue reading Andre v Price: QBD 11 Oct 2010
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant, and the court now considered the meanings of the words complained of. Another person had been held by police for seven hours after identifying the claimant as a transgendered man. Held: The judge rejected a request for his recusal. The judge’s recent involvement in a case involving transgender … Continue reading Hayden v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 11 Mar 2020
There had been a settlement of proceedings for libel brought by Lord Aldington against Mr Nigel Watts and Count Nikolai Tolstoy. Lord Aldington had obtained judgment for andpound;1.5 million in damages against both defendants following a trial. Bankruptcy orders were made against both Mr Watts and Count Tolstoy. By early 1991 Lord Aldington was faced … Continue reading Watts v Aldington, Tolstoy v Aldington: CA 15 Dec 1993
The claimant sought disclosure of identities of posters to the defendant’s web-site. Held: ‘In my view, the postings are clearly one or two-liners, in effect posted anonymously by random members of the public who do not purport, either by their identity or in what they say, to have any actual knowledge of the matters in … Continue reading Clift v Clarke: QBD 18 Feb 2011
‘(1) At common law, a statement is defamatory of the claimant if, but only if, (a) it imputes conduct which would tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people generally, and (b) the imputation crosses the common law threshold of seriousness, which is that it ‘[substantially] affects in an adverse manner the … Continue reading Allen v Times Newspapers Ltd: QBD 15 May 2019
The parties had disputed insurance claims after the foundering of the Alexandros T. After allegations of misbehaviour by the underwriters, the parties had settled the claims in a Tomlin Order. Five years later, however, the shipowners began proceedings in Greece making substantially similar allegations and claims, but under the equivalent in Greek law. In response … Continue reading In re The Alexandros T: SC 6 Nov 2013
ECJ Area of freedom, security and justice – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict – Action for a negative declaration (‘negative Feststellungsklage’) – Whether a person alleged to have committed a harmful act may bring a person who might be adversely affected before the courts with jurisdiction … Continue reading Folien Fischer AG and another v Ritrama SpA: ECJ 25 Oct 2012
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Directive 2000/31/EC – Publication of information on the internet – Adverse effect on personality rights – Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur … Continue reading eDate Advertising GmbH v X: ECJ 25 Oct 2011
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
A tortious conspiracy was alleged in the conduct of a civil action. The plaintiff appealed against rejection of his claim. Held: The appeal failed as an attempt to circumvent the immunity of a wirness in defamation by framing a claim in conspiracy. Sellers LJ considered whether a complaint was privileged: ‘Whatever form of action is … Continue reading Marrinan v Vibert: CA 2 Jan 1963
The claimant, manufacturer of electric cars, complained of a review of its car on ‘Top Gear’. It’s pleaded meanings had been rejected, and it now sought leave to amend its pleading to add new alleged defamatory meanings. Judges: Tugendhat J Citations: [2012] EWHC 310 (QB) Links: Bailii Citing: See also – Tesla Motors Ltd and … Continue reading Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation: QBD 23 Feb 2012
The claimant company manufactured electric cars. They claimed that a review of a car on the defendant’s programme ‘Top Gear’ included malicious falsehoods and was defamatory. Held: The defamatory meanings claimed could not properly be attributed to the material in the program. The claim was struck out. Judges: Tugendhat J Citations: [2011] EWHC 2760 (QB) … Continue reading Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation: QBD 28 Oct 2011
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been involved in very substantial litigation over an alleged nuisance. The claimants’ lawyers had acted under … Continue reading Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another: SC 22 Jul 2015
Andrew Smith J, dismissed a defendant’s application for summary judgment, saying that that it was not fatal to the claim that the claimant could not plead or prove that the defendant caused or authorised publication of ‘the specific defamatory words of which complaint is made’, as opposed to the imputation(s) arising from them. Where the … Continue reading Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Com v Al Refai and Others: ComC 12 Jun 2013
Citations: [2013] EWHC 2182 (QB) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: At Supreme Court – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd SC 21-Mar-2012 The defendant had published an article which was defamatory of the claimant police officer, saying that he was under investigation for alleged corruption. The inquiry later cleared him. The court was now … Continue reading Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd: QBD 25 Jul 2013
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in an article regarding her expenses claims as an MP. She appealed against summary judgment in favour of the defence in their pleaded defence of honest comment. Held: Laws LJ said: ‘The principle identified in Jameel consists in the need to put a stop to defamation proceedings that … Continue reading Lait v Evening Standard Ltd: CA 28 Jul 2011
The claimant was a non-white head teacher, alleging that her school governors and local authority had undermined and had ‘deliberately endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation’ against her as an Asian head teacher; and that the Council, ‘deliberately and unlawfully endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying and harassment and victimisation … Continue reading Singh v Moorlands Primary School and Another: CA 25 Jul 2013
Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online translations to English could be created automatically. The parties disputed the number of hits … Continue reading Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others: QBD 23 Nov 2015
The claimant brought defamation claims as to articles making allegations said to imply that the claimant had mistreated his wife. The defendant contended that, while inferences might sometimes suffice, s.1 (1) nevertheless required a claimant to prove on the balance of probabilities that he had suffered, or would be likely to suffer, serious reputational harm, … Continue reading Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd: QBD 30 Jul 2015
Warby J said: ‘ . . but as practitioners in this field are well aware, it is generally impractical for a claimant to seek out witnesses to say that they read the words complained of and thought the worse of the claimant’ Judges: Warby J Citations: [2015] EWHC 127 (QB), [2015] EMLR 13, [2015] 1 … Continue reading Ames and Another v The Spamhaus Project Ltd and Another: QBD 27 Jan 2015
Each defendant sought summary rejection of defamation claims by the claimant as regards reports of breaches of harassment injunctions granted against her. Held: ‘There is no doubt that the proceedings are an attempt by the Claimant to relitigate in this libel action the matters which she sought to rely upon in support of her unsuccessful … Continue reading Krause v Newsquest Media Group Ltd and Another: QBD 11 Nov 2013
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political persecution. The defendants now appealed from rejection of the defendants’ claim to state immunity and … Continue reading Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others: SC 17 Jan 2017
The Revenue had challenged a decision by the FTTTx to bar it from defending an appeal as to VAT liability. It had failed first to meet procedural time limits and on the issue of an unless order had failed to comply. The Revenue challenged the ability of the FTTTx to debar it from defending. Held: … Continue reading BPP Holdings Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: SC 26 Jul 2017
HMRC had been debarred from further participation in the proceedings. BPP provided training courses, and the issue was as to the chargeability to VAT of books supplied between companies in the group. In the proceedings, HMRC repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and an order was made debarring them unless they complied. They did not. They … Continue reading BPP Holdings v Revenue and Customs: CA 1 Mar 2016
The defendants had failed to comply with an ‘unless’ order requiring disclosure, and had been first debarred from defending the cases as to liability. They applied to a second judge who granted relief from sanctions after new solicitors had complied with the order. The claimant challenged the right of the second judge to grant such … Continue reading Thevarajah v Riordan and Others: SC 16 Dec 2015
FTTTx HMRC directed to provide further and better particulars – unless order breached – whether HMRC should be barred – whether Mitchell applies – HMRC barred. Judges: Judge Mosedale Citations: [2014] UKFTT 644 (TC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Finance Act 2011 75 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd … Continue reading BPP University College of Professional Studies v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Jul 2014
PROCEDURE – HMRC barred from further participation – FTT rule 8 – whether FTT applied correct principles – no – whether FTT’s decision outside reasonable exercise of judicial discretion – yes – decision set aside and remade – no barring order Judges: Judge Bishopp Citations: [2014] UKUT 496 (TCC), [2014] BVC 544, [2015] STC 415 … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v BPP Holdings Ltd and Others: UTTC 3 Oct 2014
The court set out to settle the precise defamatory meanings alleged. Trustees of an Education Centre had appointed a relative of three existing trustees to join them. The claimant chairman resigned, objecting to what he said was poor governence. The trustees issued the statement complained of in response. Held: The claim was struck out. The … Continue reading Auladin v Shaikh and Others: QBD 5 Feb 2013
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act. Held: The … Continue reading Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations made. The AG sought to restrain those publications. Held: A duty of confidence … Continue reading Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’): HL 13 Oct 1988
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act. Held: The appeal succeeded. Section 1 of the 2013 Act not … Continue reading Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another: SC 12 Jun 2019
Claimants falsehood reduced award to nominal only. The parties disputed the original authorship of bitcoin, the claimant saying he was ‘Satoshi’ that originator. The defendant published a series of tweets denying that connection. Held: One particular publication was to be read as part of the whole series and was defamatory. The defendant knew a conversation … Continue reading Wright v McCormack: QBD 1 Aug 2022
Judges and witness, including police officers are given immunity from suit in defamation in court proceedings.Fry LJ said: ‘Why should a witness be able to avail himself of his position in the box and to make without fear of civil consequences a false statement, which in many cases is perjured, and which is malicious and … Continue reading Munster v Lamb: CA 1883
High Court of Australia – The claim sought to sidestep the rule giving immuity to witnesses before a court by alleging a conspiracy to give false evidence. Held: Starke J said: ‘But it does not matter whether the action is framed as an action for defamation or as an action analogous to an action for … Continue reading Cabassi v Vila: 12 Dec 1940
The claimant alleged defamation in an article on the defendant’s web-site discussing a failure of his earlier defamation action. He now sought directions for a jury trial. Judges: Nicola Davies DBE J Citations: [2013] EWHC 2202 (QB) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995 The applicant … Continue reading McGrath v Independent Print Ltd: QBD 26 Jul 2013
Lord Esher MR said: ‘It could not be denied that the court had jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction before trial. It was, however, a most delicate jurisdiction to exercise, because, though Fox’s Act only applied to indictments and informations for libel, the practice under that Act had been followed in civil actions for libel, … Continue reading William Coulson and Sons v James Coulson and Co: CA 1887
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to be disclosed during the hearing, but the court had had no power … Continue reading Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd: HL 1 Feb 1979
When looking at a political speech, the court should be careful of over-elaborate analysis. Judges: Nicola Davies DBE J Citations: [2013] EWHC 2201 (QB) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Waterson v Lloyd MP and Another CA 28-Feb-2013 The former MP for Eastbourne had brought an action for defamation against the … Continue reading Waterson v Lloyd and Another: QBD 26 Jul 2013
The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first species, which I will call ’cause of action estoppel,’ is that which prevents a party … Continue reading Thoday v Thoday: CA 1964
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as unlawful the respondent’s, at first unpublished, policy introduced in 2006, that by default, those awaiting deportation should be … Continue reading Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 23 Mar 2011
A unit constructed by the claimant had collapsed under a weight of rainwater. It had been constructed according to a design provided by the defendants. The claimants had discontinued the action on the morning of the trial, and the defendants now sought costs on an indemnity basis. Held: An order for indemnity costs may only … Continue reading Wates Construction Ltd v HGP Greentree Allchurch Evans Ltd: TCC 10 Oct 2005
No anonymity for investigation suspect The claimant had been investigated on an allegation of historic sexual abuse. He had never been charged, but the investigation had continued with others being convicted in a high profile case. He appealed from refusal of orders restricting publication of his name and involvement in the inquiry. Held: (Kerr and … Continue reading PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others: SC 19 Jul 2017
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the action for defamation claiming the privilege. Held: The original statement had privilege but the repetition outside parliament … Continue reading Jennings v Buchanan: PC 14 Jul 2004
The court was asked whether a defendant domiciled in the United States of America be served by means of email with a claim form issued in England. Judges: Tugendhat J Citations: [2011] EWHC 1072 (QB), [2012] 1 WLR 753, [2011] All ER (D) 37, [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 852 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading Bacon v Automattic Inc and Others: QBD 6 May 2011
There was a complicated commercial dispute involving allegations of conspiracy. A claim by the plaintiffs for inducing or procuring a breach of contract would have been statute-barred in New York. Held: Slade LJ said: ‘The judge’s approach to the limitation point was further criticised by the defendants’ counsel on the grounds that, following the guidance … Continue reading Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc: CA 1990
(New South Wales) Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest discussed how words subject to a claim in defamation should be read: ‘In deciding whether words are capable of conveying a defamatory meaning the court will reject those meanings which can only emerge as the product of some strained or forced or utterly unreasonable interpretation.’ As to the … Continue reading Jones v Skelton: PC 1963
A claim was brought against a medical witness in respect of statements made in preparation of a witness statement and similar statements subsequently made in court. The appellant was a doctor of medicine who had been retained by the respondent in respect of proposed proceedings against her husband for separation and aliment. He was later … Continue reading Watson v M’Ewan: HL 1905
Misuse of Power for ulterior object D1 and D2 lent C 80 pounds repayable in 1837, secured by a mortgage on C’s vessel. C was to be free to continue to use the vessel in the interim but the law forbade its use if he were to cease to hold its register. In 1836 the … Continue reading Grainger v Hill: CEC 1838
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
The newspapers challenged orders preventing their publication of extracts of the ‘Spycatcher’ book. Held: The dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to … Continue reading Observer and Guardian v The United Kingdom: ECHR 26 Nov 1991
The plaintiff began a defamation action against seven defendants. Each had admitted publication but pleaded justification. The claims against the fourth to seventh defendants were dismissed by consent, and the third had gone into liquidation. The remaining two defendants, acting in person, applied for the action to be struck-out for want of prosecution. The plaintiff’s … Continue reading Grovit and others v Doctor and others: HL 24 Apr 1997
Application by the Defendant, Squire Sanders LLP, to strike out this libel action under CPR paragraph 4.1 of PD 53, on the ground that the words complained of in this libel action are incapable of bearing the meaning pleaded Judges: Sharp J Citations: [2013] EWHC 2404 (QB) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation Updated: … Continue reading Hodgins v Squire Sanders Llp: QBD 1 Aug 2013
Judgment on the second stage of the trial of a claim for libel and malicious falsehood. Held: Tugendhat J adopted the meaning ‘more likely than not to cause pecuniary damage’ for ‘calculated to’. Judges: Tugendhat J Citations: [2013] EWHC 2298 (QB) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Cruddas v Calvert and … Continue reading Cruddas v Calvert and Others: QBD 31 Jul 2013
The claimant sought protection under the Act from his former employers’ behaviour in making repeated allegations against him. He appealed against the striking out of his claim. Held: The appeal suceeded. The matter should go to trial. The defendants had written three letters and ‘these three letters, particularly when viewed in the light of each … Continue reading Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors: CA 15 Feb 2011
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case. Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not guarantee a right of appeal. It was not disputed that the security for costs … Continue reading Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Jul 1995
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision made by TfL not to allow an advertisement on behalf of the Trust to appear on the outside of its buses. It was to read: ‘NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!’. The decision was said to be based on the resondent’s policies. The respondent … Continue reading Core Issues Trust v Transport for London: Admn 22 Mar 2013
The defendants employed by the first defendant carried out a post mortem on the plaintiff’s infant son. They found concentrations of morphine and told the police. The plaintiff was charged with the murder of her son. After further investigation no evidence was offered and she was acquitted. She claimed damages for negligence against the defendants … Continue reading Evans v London Hospital Medical College and Others: 1981
(High Court of Australia) Criminal Law – Abuse of process – Stay of proceedings – Action for wrongful dismissal against university – Information for criminal defamation by plaintiff against officer of university – Predominant purpose of informant to secure reinstatement or favourable settlement of action – Whether abuse of process.Brennan J attempted a partial definition … Continue reading Williams v Spautz: 27 Jul 1992
The plaintiff, a trawler skipper sailing out of Grimsby, was a member of the Grimsby Fishermens’ Trades Union. A committee member was the defendant. The plaintiff was among those voting for a strike, and an unofficial strike was called. The defendant was said to have visited the owner’s offices asking for a ship to go … Continue reading Myroft v Sleight: 1921
The plaintiff had contracted exclusively to supply to the defendants owners of petrol stations. On arrears arising, the plaintiff discontinued deliveries save on cash on delivery and direct debit terms. The defendants obtained supplies from another source and the plaintiff terminated the agreement. There then followed proceedings which the defendants lost in court and which … Continue reading Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Limited v Page: CA 1987
The House was asked whether a conversation between a person seeking the services of a solicitor in relation to the purchase of real property and the solicitor was privileged in circumstances where the solicitor was being requested to lend the deposit payable under the transaction but was not prepared to do so and declined to … Continue reading Minter v Priest: HL 1930
The court was asked about the liability in defamation of a circulating library who provided books to subscribers, in this case about the book on Stanley’s search for Emir Pasha in Africa. Judges: Romer LJ Citations: [1900] 2 QB 170 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited QBD 26-Mar-1999 … Continue reading Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library: 1900
A coalmine owner claimed statutory compensation against a water undertaking which had, under its statutory authority, prevented him mining his coal over a period during which the price of coal had risen. The House was asked whether the coal should be valued as at the beginning of the period or at its value during the … Continue reading Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co: HL 1903
Dr Trapp had been dismissed from his post by the Aberdeenshire Education Committee of which Mr Mackie was chairman. Dr Trapp petitioned the Secretary of State for an inquiry into the reasons for his dismissal. An inquiry was set up, and in the course of that inquiry Mr Mackie gave evidence. On the basis of … Continue reading Trapp v Mackie: HL 1979
The section gives the court jurisdiction to make an administration order if it ‘(a) is satisfied that a company is or is likely to become unable to pay its debts’ and ‘(b) considers that the making of an order . . would be likely to achieve’ one or more of the purposes specified in s8(3). … Continue reading In re Harris Simons Construction Limited: ChD 1989
Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said: ‘However, in this case the plaintiffs rely on the decision . . in Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd v. Page . . which shows that, where the cause of action is founded on conspiracy to injure, the court can grant an injunction restraining publication.It is the plaintiffs’ case here that they … Continue reading Femis Bank v Lazard: 1991
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against an order for the trial of a preliminary issue, since in its view the issue of privilege the subject of the order might require for its determination an investigation of fact in greater detail than the facts alleged in the statement of claim, on the basis of … Continue reading Richards v Naum: CA 1967
The plaintiff pleaded that on a day at the end of 1910 or early in 1911 the defendant published specified defamatory words to Le Grys and further during the years 1910, 1911 and 1912 the defendant published similar words. The slander imputed immoral conduct to the plaintiff, a married woman. The plaintiff stated that she … Continue reading Barham v Lord Huntingfield: CA 1913
A local newspaper circulating in Teesside, where the claimant had been appointed deputy headmaster of a school, published an article in 1973 saying of the claimant that he was a former Roman Catholic priest who had left his parish in the Salford diocese and later married and it was claimed of him that he ‘went … Continue reading Fulham (orse Fullam) v Newcastle Chronicle and Journal Ltd and Another: CA 1977
‘It was adjudged, that if one exhibits articles to justices of peace against a certain person, containing divers great abuses and misdemeanors, not only concerning the petitioners themselves, but many others, and all this to the intent that he should be bound to his good behaviour; in this case the party accused shall not have … Continue reading Cutler v Dixon: KBD 1585
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the arrangement was so that false benefit claims could be made to … Continue reading Tinsley v Milligan: HL 28 Jun 1993
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its property rights. It was also argued that it was not possible to make a declaration … Continue reading Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003
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
The court considered applications for relief from sanction under CPR 3.1(7). Held: An application under CPR 3.1(7) usually requires a change of circumstances. Considerations of finality, the undesirability of allowing litigants to have two bites at the cherry and the need to avoid undermining the concept of appeal all required a principled curtailment of an … Continue reading Tibbles v SIG Plc (T/A Asphaltic Roofing Supplies): CA 26 Apr 2012
Judges: Warby J Citations: [2018] EWHC 1961 (QB), [2018] WLR(D) 488 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Defamation Act 2013 1 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620623
Stephane Grappelli, an renowned musician, employed the defendants to promote him. They purported to arrange various concerts, but did so without his authority. When they were cancelled, they told the venue owners that they were cancelled because the plaintiff was ‘very seriously ill in Paris’ and that it would be surprising ‘if he ever toured … Continue reading Grappelli v Derek Block (Holdings) Ltd: CA 20 Jan 1981
The parties had been married and divorced. Mrs S told M S’s new partner on Facebook that he had tried to strangle her and made other allegations. Mrs S now appealed from a finding that she had defamed him. Lord Kerr restated the approach to meaning in defamation actions: ‘Therein lies the danger of the … Continue reading Stocker v Stocker: SC 3 Apr 2019
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the reputations in England, and accordingly the proper place to sue was in England. Under English law … Continue reading Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same: HL 16 May 2000
The House described the different origins of libel and slander. Libel was regarded by the Court of Star Chamber not merely as a crime punishable as such, but also as a wrong carrying the penalty of general damages, and this remedy was carried forward by the common law courts after Star Chamber was abolished by … Continue reading Jones v Jones: HL 1916
