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: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 27 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
James Gilbert Ltd v MGN Ltd [2000] EMLR 681
2000
Early J
Defamation, Civil Procedure Rules
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.
Defamation Act 1996 8 - Civil Procedure Rules 24
1 Citers
Schellenberg v British Broadcasting Corporation [2000] EMLR 296; [1999] EWHC 851 (QB)
2000
QBD
Eady J
Media, Defamation
The claimant had settled defamation actions against the Guardian and the Sunday Times on disadvantageous terms, when it seemed likely that he was about to lose. He then pressed on with this almost identical action against the BBC. Held: A court may strike out a defamation claim as abuse of process if there is evidence that no proper advantage will flow to the claimant for pursuing it. The court rejected the submission that he should not do so as this would deprive the claimant of his 'constitutional right' to trial by jury: "I see no reason why such cases require to be subjected to a different pre-trial regime. It is necessary to apply the overriding objective even in those categories of litigation and in particular to have regard to proportionality. Here there are tens of thousands of pounds of costs at stake and several weeks of court time. I must therefore have regard to the possible benefits that might accrue to the claimant as rendering such a significant expenditure potentially worthwhile." The overriding objective's requirement for proportionality meant that he was bound to ask whether "the game is worth the candle": "I am afraid I cannot accept that there is any realistic prospect of a trial yielding any tangible or legitimate advantage such as to outweigh the disadvantages for the parties in terms of expense, and the wider public in terms of court resources."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
GKR Karate (UK) Ltd v Yorkshire Post Newspapers Ltd and others (No.1); CA 11-Jan-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 420; [2000] CP Rep 47; [2000] 2 All ER 931; [2000] 1 WLR 2571; [2000] EMLR 396
Tancic v Times Newspapers Ltd Times, 12 January 2000
12 Jan 2000
CA
Defamation
The pleadings in defamation proceedings should be limited so as to restrict the parties to the essential issues. The defendant should not be prevented from presenting his defence properly, and a successful claimant should not have been prevented from obtaining a proper vindication of his reputation. Finding this balance was a matter for the discretion of the judge.
GKR Karate (UK) Limited v Porch, Yorkshire Post Newspaper, Holmes Gazette, 27 January 2000; Times, 09 February 2000; [2000] EWHC QB 180; (2000) EMLR 396
17 Jan 2000
QBD
Sir Oliver Popplewell
Defamation, Litigation Practice, Media
The claimant sought damages alleging defamation. The judge ordered certain elements of the case to be heard first, and others, if necessary later. Although the case had been begun under the old rules, the new civil procedure regime gave the judge much wider powers of management, and defamation cases were notoriously expensive and lengthy and the powers were particularly appropriate for use in defamation cases. As to qualified privilege: "A privileged occasion exists if the public is entitled to know the particular information. That is, if it was the journalist's social or moral duty to communicate it and the interest of the particular public to receive it. This is determined in the light of all the circumstances of the publication and, in particular, whether the sources were, or appeared to be reliable, to a reasonable and responsible journalist. While Lord Nicholls' ten examples are not to be taken as written in stone, they form the basic framework upon which a judge can do the balancing exercise." and "In particular, I am adjured to avoid hindsight, attach importance to the freedom of expression, be slow to conclude that publication was not in the public interest, to resolve any lingering doubts in favour of publication, and to be flexible in my approach."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
GKR Karate (UK) Ltd v Yorkshire Post Newspapers Ltd (No1) [2001] 1 WLR 2571
21 Jan 2000
CA
May LJ
Defamation
It was arguable that a defendant in defamation proceedings could pray in aid in his claim for qualified privilege circumstances not known to him at the time of the publication: "there was a real, if problematic, prospect of success."
May LJ said: "the existence or otherwise of qualified privilege is to be judged in all the circumstances at the time of the publication. It is not necessary or relevant to determine whether the publication was true or not. None of Lord Nicholls's 10 considerations require such a determination and some of them (for example number 8) positively suggest otherwise. Nor is it necessary or relevant to speculate (for the purposes, for instance, of considerations 3, 4 or 7) what further information the publisher might have received if he had made more extensive inquiries. The question is rather whether, in all the circumstances, the public was entitled to know the particular information without the publisher making further such inquiries . . the defendant's state of mind is to be determined at the time of publication. The subsequently determined truth or falsity of the publication is not material. Where, as in the present case, the contention is that [the journalist] was reckless and that she did not consider or care whether her publication was true or not, this is to be inferred (or not) "from what [she] did or said or knew." A failure to make further or proper inquiries is capable of being an ingredient from which recklessness may be inferred. What the response to those inquiries might have been is not capable of being such an ingredient."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regan v Taylor; CA 9-Mar-2000 - Times, 15 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 68; [2000] EMLR 549
Hamilton v Al Fayed; HL 23-Mar-2000 - Times, 28 March 2000; Gazette, 06 April 2000; [2000] 2 All ER 224; [2000] UKHL 18; [2001] 1 AC 395
Irving v Penguin Books Limited, Professor Lipstat; QBD 11-Apr-2000 - [2000] EWHC QB 115
Bergens Tidende And Others v Norway 26132/95; (2001) 31 EHRR 16; [2000] ECHR 190
2 May 2000
ECHR
Human Rights, Media, Defamation
A newspaper complained that its rights under Article 10 of the Convention had been infringed by a libel action which a cosmetic surgeon had successfully brought against it in respect of defamatory articles it had published saying he was incompetent. Held: The complaint succeeded, but the rights of the press are to be balanced by responsibilities. As to the general principles, the Court referred to its well-established case law and the freedom of expression which constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, subject to Article 10(2) which leaves the national authorities with a certain margin of appreciation and continued: "The Court further recalls the essential function the press fulfils in a democratic society. Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, particularly as regards the reputation and rights of others and the need to prevent the disclosure of confidential information, its duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest."
In applying these principles, the Court came back to the same point: "Where, as in the present case, measures taken by the national authorities are capable of discouraging the press from disseminating information on matters of legitimate public concern, careful scrutiny of the proportionality of the measures on the part of the Court is called for." However, the Court further observes that Article 10 of the Convention does not guarantee a wholly unrestricted freedom of expression even with respect to press coverage of matters of serious public concern. Under the terms of paragraph (2) of the Article, the exercise of this freedom carries with it 'duties and responsibilities' which also apply to the press."
In view of the importance of the right to freedom of expression, restrictions upon it have to be "established convincingly".
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same; HL 16-May-2000 - Times, 16 May 2000; Gazette, 31 May 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1004; [2000] UKHL 25; [2000] 2 All ER 986
Smeaton v Butcher and others; CA 31-May-2000 - Gazette, 31 May 2000; [2000] EMLR 985
Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2); CA 8-Jun-2000 - Times, 14 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 185; [2000] 1 WLR 2150; [2000] EMLR 873; [2000] Po LR 210; [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 1; [2000] 4 All ER 41
Green v Schneller [2000] NSWSC 548
19 Jun 2000
Simpson J
Commonwealth, Defamation
(New South Wales Supreme Court) The claimant sought damages for defamation saying that the defendant had made public what was a private matter namely their neighbour dispute.
Lange v Atkinson [2000] 3 NZLR 385
21 Jun 2000
Commonwealth, Defamation
(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) The court rejected a test of reasonableness before accepting a defence to defamation associated with the political nature of the speech.
1 Citers
[ NZLii ]
Jarvis Plc and Others v Pricewaterhousecoopers Gazette, 03 August 2000; [2000] EWHC Ch 78
13 Jul 2000
ChD
Company, Defamation
A company's auditors resigned, and issued a notice detailing circumstances which they thought should be brought to the attention of the shareholders. The claimants issued proceedings, claiming the notice merely sought to bring attention to defamatory matter. They discontinued, and the defendants applied for an order that the contents of the notice be distributed to the persons interested. The order was made. There was no need for a declaration that the purpose of the original notice had not been to seek publicity as alleged.
[ Bailii ]
Gordon Coutts Thomson and Mrs Maria Teresa Thomson v Sheriff Kenneth Ross and others [2000] ScotCS 202
18 Jul 2000
SCS
Lord Eassie
Legal Professions, Defamation
[ Bailii ]
Holland v Lampen-Wolfe; HL 20-Jul-2000 - Gazette, 17 August 2000; Times, 27 July 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1573; [2000] UKHL 40; [2000] 3 All ER 833
Alexander v Arts Council of Wales; QBD 20-Jul-2000 - Unreported, 20 July 2000
Cassidy v Hawcroft; CA 27-Jul-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 238
Saad Al-Fagih v HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd Unreported, 28 July 2000
28 Jul 2000
QBD
Smith J
Defamation
The court considered the factors which the court should take into account when carrying out the balancing process with regard to the defence of qualified privilege because of the public interest: "Some factors relate to the quality, status and importance of the material. Others relate to the conduct and decisions of the publisher or journalist concerned. The factors are to be considered objectively in the light of matters known to the publisher or journalist at the time. In so far as a journalist's conduct and his decision to publish come under scrutiny, he or she should not be judged with the benefit of hindsight. The standards which will be expected of the journalist are no more than is required by responsible and ethical journalism. One of a journalist's duties is to take reasonable care not to publish false information as the public interest is not served thereby. This may impose on the journalist a duty to verify information if such verification is feasible. In some cases, information may come to the journalist from a source which he reasonably considers to be of sufficient authority and reliability that he is entitled to rely upon its truth without verification. The weight to be accorded to each of the various factors will vary according to the circumstances of the case. If at the end of the balancing exercise, the court is in doubt, it will resolve the doubt in favour of publication."
1 Citers
Thomson and Another v Sheriff Ross and Others [2000] ScotCS 264
25 Oct 2000
SCS
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, Lord Dawson, Lord Wheatley
Legal Professions, Defamation
The pursuers and reclaimers seek damages against the defenders on the ground that they have suffered loss, injury and damage by reason of the libellous and defamatory statements of the defenders and respondents. At the time that the statements were made the pursuers were enrolled solicitors and partners in a law firm, Gordon Thomson & Co. Damages are sought both for injury to their feelings and their reputation and for substantial financial loss including loss of their legal business and two related businesses. The defenders are, respectively, the individual who was President of the Law Society of Scotland at the relevant time (the first defender), the Law Society itself (the second defenders) and, as the fourth to ninth named individuals, those individuals who constituted the members of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, which between October 1994 and April 1995 heard two complaints alleging professional misconduct concerning the pursuers' law firm and the partners of it. Held: Stateable cases having been presented, the case should be allowed to go ahead.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
McCartan Turkington Breen (A Firm) v Times Newspapers Limited; HL 2-Nov-2000 - Times, 03 November 2000; [2000] UKHL 57; [2001] 2 AC 277; [2000] 4 All ER 913; [2000] 9 BHRC 497; [2000] 3 WLR 1670; [2000] NI 410; [2001] UKHRR 184; [2001] EMLR 1
Skrine and Co (a Firm) and others v Euromoney Publications plc and others Times, 10 November 2000; Gazette, 23 November 2000; [2001] EMLR 16
10 Nov 2000
QBD
Morland J
International, Human Rights, Defamation
The court was asked to strike out parts of a defemation pleading alleging that (i) the Malaysian Prime Minister had acted in a manner intended and/or calculated to interfere with the independent judiciary; (ii) Malaysian judges applied the law of defamation to penalise dissent and stifle freedom of expression; and (iii) the claimants' insurers only paid the original plaintiffs "exorbitant sums by way of ostensible damages and costs because they apprehended that the claimants would not have received a fair trial at the hands of Malaysia's internationally discredited legal system." Held: An English court should not be asked to judge the propriety of the actions of the judiciary of a friendly foreign state. This would put such friendly relations at risk and an English judge could have no way of making such a judgment. It was not a breach of an applicant's civil rights to enforce a properly made contribution order made there against a citizen here, since under the Act only an award which was just and equitable in all the circumstances could be made. The defence of fair comment could still be tried fairly.
Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978
1 Cites
1 Citers
Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert Cheng; 13-Nov-2000 - [2001] EMLR 777; [2000] 3 HKLRD 418; [2000] HKCFA 35
Safeway Stores Plc v Albert Tate Times, 26 January 2001; Gazette, 22 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 335
18 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Otton, Lord Justice Mantell And Sir Ronald Waterhouse
Defamation, Constitutional, Civil Procedure Rules
The respondent, a neighbour of the claimant, had fallen into dispute with the claimant, and issued a leaflet and signs alleging fraud. The claimants obtained an injunction, and in the absence of a substantive defence, judgement. He claimed that the judgement had deprived him of his right to a jury trial because the case involved an allegation of fraud. Held: The rule was ultra vires section 1(3) of the Act. It was not for a judge to pre-empt a possibly perverse jury finding. The right is a fundamental, not a procedural right, and was outside the power of the Rules Committee. The right is guaranteed by statute, and cannot be taken away by a delegated legislation. The rule which allowed summary judgment to be entered in all cases was a denial of that right. However the rule, as amended, allowed an exception in cases of some compelling reason. The right to jury trial in defamation case was such a compelling reason. The Act provided exceptions to the otherwise absolute right to elect for jury trial, and the list of exceptions in the act was complete and exclusive. There was no power in delegated legislation to repeal such a fundamental right given by primary legislation.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 24.2(b) - Defamation Act 1981 - Supreme Court Act 1981 1(3) 69
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd; CA 20-Dec-2000 - Times, 31 January 2001; Gazette, 22 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 338; [2001] 1 WLR 579; [2001] EMLR 14
