swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Defamation - From: 1995 To: 1995
This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
McDonald Corporation v Steel; CA 1995 - [1995] EMLR 527; [1995] 3 All ER 615
Stratton Oakmont Inc v Prodigy Services Co; 1995 - (1995) 23 Media L Rep 1794; (1995) 63 US Law Week 2765; [1995] NY Misc Lexis 229
Taylor v Anderton (Police Complaints Authority Intervening) Independent, 28 February 1995; Gazette, 15 March 1995; Times, 19 January 1995; [1995] 1 WLR 447
19 Jan 1995
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Rose, Morritt LJJ
Police, Defamation, Litigation Practice
Reports, which had been prepared for the purposes of a police complaint procedure, could be entitled to protection from disclosure under a public interest immunity certificate. The court also considered the relationship between the documentation and the decision as to whether a trial wasto be by judge alone, or with a jury. Cost is also a consideration: 'The case as it stands will be very lengthy, very expensive, very burdensome and very difficult to control if tried by a judge alone. If tried by a judge and jury it will be even lengthier, even more expensive, even more burdensome and even more difficult to control.' The fact that sight of a document for inspection may give the inspecting party a litigious advantage in the litigation does not of itself make production of the document unfair: "The crucial consideration is, in my judgment, the meaning of the expression 'disposing fairly of the cause or matter'. Those words direct attention to the question whether inspection is necessary for the fair determination of the matter, whether by trial or otherwise. The purpose of the rule is to ensure that one party does not enjoy an unfair advantage or suffer an unfair disadvantage in the litigation as a result of a document not being produced for inspection. It is, I think, of no importance that a party is curious about the contents of a document or would like to know the contents of it, if he suffers no litigious disadvantage by not seeing it and would gain no litigious advantage by seeing it. That, in my judgment, is the test."
1 Citers
Gilberthorpe v Hawkins, News Group Newspapers Ltd and others [1995] EWCA Civ 57
15 Mar 1995
CA
McCowan, Ward LJJ<, Sir Roger Parker
Defamation
The plaintiff appealed against an order striking out his defamation action.
[ Bailii ]
Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; HL 31-Mar-1995 - Times, 31 March 1995; Independent, 31 March 1995; [1995] 2 AC 65; [1995] UKHL 6; [1995] 2 All ER 313; [1995] 2 WLR 450
Gilberthorpe v Hawkins and Others Ind Summary, 01 May 1995; Times, 03 April 1995
3 Apr 1995
CA
Defamation
The absence of legal aid for libel cases may excuse a delay in the prosecution of the case, and should be allowed for.
Cumming v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd and Others; QBD 8-Jun-1995 - Ind Summary, 10 July 1995; Times, 08 June 1995
Kirby-Harris v Baxter and Others; CA 15-Jun-1995 - Times, 15 June 1995
Aspro Travel Ltd and Others v Owners Abroad Group Plc and Others Independent, 20 July 1995; Times, 11 July 1995; Gazette, 31 August 1995
11 Jul 1995
CA
Defamation
It can be just possible that the existence of a rumour makes it right to repeat the rumour without checking its truth. Repetition need not always be quite unjustifiable.
Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom; ECHR 19-Jul-1995 - Times, 19 July 1995; Independent, 22 September 1995; (1995) 20 EHRR 442; 18139/91; [1995] ECHR 25
Allason v Haines and Another Times, 25 July 1995
25 Jul 1995
QBD
Defamation
Defamation case should be stayed if defendant cannot pursue case because of claim of parliamentary privilege.
Botiuk v Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd [1995] 3 SCR 3
21 Sep 1995
La Forest, L'Heureux-Dube, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ
Defamation
(Supreme Court of Canada) Defamation was alleged against lawyers writing on behalf of their clients. Held: The defendant lawyers were 'duty-bound' to undertake a reasonable investigation into the correctness of the document they were signing and their failure to do so was reckless: 'actions which might be characterized as careless behaviour in a lay person could well become reckless behaviour in a lawyer'.
1 Citers
[ Canlii ]
Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling and Lom Times, 22 September 1995; [1997] QB 650; [1995] EWCA Civ 45; [1996] 2 WLR 427; [1996] EMLR 1; [1996] 1 All ER 152
22 Sep 1995
CA
Hirst LJ, Henry LJ, Sir Ralph Gibson
Defamation
The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested - no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying that he had drafted the apology in such a way as to repeat the libel complained of. Held: The general principle on which common law qualified privilege was founded was the public interest frequently expressed as "the common convenience and welfare of society" or "the general interest of society". The parties had been unable to identify any previous occasion on which an apology had been found itself to be defamatory. Throughout the history of the development of the doctrine of priviege, the protection has always been described as arising where "the occasion of the publication affords a defence in the absence of express malice". The word "occasion" connotes the origin and circumstances of the publication of each individual defendant or third party, and in carrying through this exercise the position of each individual person involved in the publication requires separate consideration. Having regard to the origin and circumstances of the publication of this apology, the necessary conditions are satisfied by which protection should be obtained weer not satisfied.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Gillick v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another Times, 20 October 1995; Independent, 19 October 1995; [1996] EMLR 267; [1995] EWCA Civ 46
19 Oct 1995
CA
Neill LJ
Defamation
Words which were broadcast were capable of meaning that the Plaintiff's behaviour had contributed to deaths. She was a campaigner against the giving of contraceptive advice to young girls. Held: The statement was defamatory. The full test was: "(1) The court should give to the material complained of the natural and ordinary meaning which it would have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer watching the programme once. (2) The hypothetical reader (or viewer) is not naive but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking. But he must be treated as being a man who is not avid for scandal and someone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available. (3) While limiting its attention to what the defendant has actually said or written the court should be cautious of an over-elaborate analysis of the material in question. (4) A television audience would not give the programme the analytical attention of a lawyer to the meaning of a document, an auditor to the interpretation of accounts, or an academic to the content of a learned article. (5) In deciding what impression the material complained of would have been likely to have on the hypothetical reasonable viewer the court are entitled (if not bound) to have regard to the impression it made on them. (6) The court should not be too literal in its approach."
Neill LJ: "It will be for the jury to decide what the words complained of actually meant in their context. At this stage I am satisfied that within the spectrum of meanings of which the words were reasonably capable is the meaning that Mrs Gillick was in some sense to blame for the girls' deaths and therefore morally responsible to a culpable degree."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Oyston v Blaker and Others Times, 15 November 1995
15 Nov 1995
CA
Defamation
Limitation periods are more easily set aside in defamation cases. The court has a wide discretion.
Limitation Act 1980 32A
John v MGN Ltd; CA 12-Dec-1995 - Independent, 15 December 1995; Times, 14 December 1995; [1997] QB 586; [1995] 2 All ER 35; [1996] 3 WLR 593; [1995] EWCA Civ 23; [1996] EMLR 229
Tolstoy-Miloslavsky v Aldington; CA 27-Dec-1995 - Gazette, 10 January 1996; Independent, 03 January 1996; Times, 27 December 1995; [1996] 1 WLR 736
Bennet and Others v Guardian Newspapers Ltd; QBD 28-Dec-1995 - Times, 28 December 1995
