Tugendhat J said: ‘A claimant’s primary concern in a libel action is vindication, not damages for what has been suffered in the past. So the damage that has occurred before the action is brought may not give an indication of the importance of the claim. Vindication includes a retraction, or a verdict for the claimant, or a judgment to the effect that the allegation complained of is false . .’
Judges:
Tugendhat J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 2859 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Cammish v Hughes QBD 20-Apr-2012
The defendant disputed whether the words complained of were defamatory, and whether the action was an abuse as being ‘not worth the candle’. The parties were in opposition over a proposed development of a biomass plant.
Held: The court found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Jurisdiction
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.425973
