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 court was asked whether the daughter of Cecil Parkinson and Sarah Keays should be permitted to take part in a television programme about the specialist help she was receiving for her special educational needs. Held: The court refused to vary an injunction against publication of any details with regard to a particular child. This … Continue reading In re Z (A Minor) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication): CA 31 Jul 1995
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
Exemplary and aggravated damages were claimed in an action for nuisance arising out of the contamination of water by the defendant utility. Held: Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘A defendant accused of crime may ordinarily be ordered (if convicted) to pay a financial penalty. In such a case he will enjoy the constitutional safeguards afforded … Continue reading AB v South West Water Services Ltd: CA 1993
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 police were not under any duty to protect someone who had been arrested from injuring himself in an attempt to escape. The claimant had a history of seeking to avoid capture by jumping from his flat window. On this occasion he injured himself in the fall. The doctrine of ex turpi no oritur actio … Continue reading Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police: CA 31 Jul 2001
The plaintiff (herself a Princess) complained that she could be identified with the character Princess Natasha in the film ‘Rasputin, the Mad Monk’. On the basis that the film suggested that, by reason of her identification with ‘Princess Natasha’, she had been seduced by Rasputin, she was awarded andpound;25,000 damages. The defendant contended that if … Continue reading Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures: CA 1934
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 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
Test For Defamatory Meaning The plaintiff complained that the defendant had written in a telegram to accuse him of enticing away a servant. The House considered the process of deciding whether words were defamatory. Held: The telegram was incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning.Lord Atkin set out a test: ‘The question, then, is whether the … Continue reading Sim v Stretch: HL 1936
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. The Court of Appeal had considered Rookes -v- Barnard to have been … Continue reading Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another: HL 23 Feb 1972
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
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US authorities. The claimant had asserted that no more … Continue reading Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing In a whistleblowing claim the issue was whether the Tribunal had correctly interpreted and applied section 43B(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 in two respects; (1) what amounts to an allegation of a breach of a legal obligation and (2) the public interest element in light of the guidance from the Court … Continue reading Ibrahim v HCA International Ltd: EAT 13 Sep 2018
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a friend, … Continue reading Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson: HL 26 May 1932
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
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
The claimant complained that the defendant had said in a television programme that he had failed to act properly when presenting his expert forensic evidence in court in the trial of the Birmingham Six. Held: The court should give to the material complained of the natural and ordinary meaning which it would have conveyed to … Continue reading Skuse v Granada Television: CA 30 Mar 1993
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings. Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule of the Court correctly when I … Continue reading Henderson v Henderson: 20 Jul 1843
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had retrospectively amended it so as to remove with effect from the date of grant … Continue reading Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd: SC 3 Jul 2013
The claimant, former chairman of the Thailand Football Association, claimed in defamation against the defendant who had been chairman of the English Football Association. The defendant asked the court to strike out the claim, saying that some of the claims were based on privileged evidence given to a parliamentary committee, and associated publications, and the … Continue reading Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham In London Borough of Haringey: QBD 1 Feb 2013
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
Appeal from a decision granting the claimant’s application made pursuant to section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period in his proceedings for libel and dismissing the defendants’ application to strike out the claimant’s claim under CPR rule 3.4(2). Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The judge had incorrectly assessed the reasons … Continue reading Reed Elsevier Uk Ltd (T/A Lexisnexis) and Another v Bewry: CA 30 Oct 2014
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
The defendant published an article accusing the plaintiff of theft. Not having funds to launch a claim in libel, the plaintiff obtained legal aid to claim in malicious falsehood. She now appealed against a strike out of that claim. Held: A claim in malicious falsehood was a possible and proper alternative to a libel claim. … Continue reading Joyce v Sengupta and Another: CA 31 Jul 1992
The parties had earlier compromised their dispute, with the claimant undertaking not to lodge any further claim unless he did so within a certain time. They now sought to commence action. Held: When considering whether to discharge such an undertaking the court should ask: ‘whether it would be just to deprive the respondent of the … Continue reading Di Placito v Slater and others: CA 19 Dec 2003
Damages or removal of coal under land User damages were awarded for the unauthorised removal of coal from beneath the appellant’s land, even though the site was too small for the appellant to have mined the coal himself. The appellant was also awarded damages for the damage done to the houses on the surface. If … Continue reading Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co: HL 13 Feb 1880
Bane and Antidote Doctrine – Take them as One The court considered the bane and antidote doctrine in defamation. B Alderson said: ‘But the question here is, whether the matter be slanderous or not, which is a question of the Jury; who are to take the whole together and say whether the result of the … Continue reading Chalmers v Payne: 1835
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
The plaintiff had been falsely reported to the police by the defendant, a neighbour, for indecent exposure whilst standing on a ladder in his garden. He had been arrested and charged, but at a hearing before the Magistrates’ Court, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence, and the charge was dismissed. He appealed against the … Continue reading Martin v Watson: HL 13 Jul 1995
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 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
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal from prison. The legal services department of the Prison service relayed the notices to … Continue reading Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland: SC 23 May 2012
dawkins_rokeby1873 Police officers (among others) are immune from any action that may be brought against them on the ground that things said or done by them in the ordinary course of the proceedings were said or done falsely and maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause.Kelly CB said that: ‘The authorities are clear, uniform and … Continue reading Dawkins v Lord Rokeby: 1873
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
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 plaintiff had bought a house on the faith of the defendant’s report that there were only limited defects requiring repair. In fact the defects were much more extensive. The defendant surveyor appealed against an award of damages after his negligent survey of a property. The plaintiff sought damages for distress, and the cost of … Continue reading Watts and Co v Morrow: CA 30 Jul 1991
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their patents. Held: Disclosure should be ordered. If someone, even innocently … Continue reading Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners: HL 26 Jun 1973
The defendant appealed against a striking out of part of its defence to the claim of defamation, pleading justification. Held: The Human Rights Convention had not itself changed the conditions for a plea of justification based upon reasonable belief that the claimant had acted criminally. The three conditions were: the inability to rely upon hearsay, … Continue reading Chase v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd: CA 3 Dec 2002
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims were in Data Protection and the common law tort of … Continue reading NT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc: QBD 13 Apr 2018
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
The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to him under the Employment Rights Act 1996 through the Employment Tribunal system. Held: The statutory system for compensation for unfair dismissal is a complete system, and was intended to replace any common law action for damages arising … Continue reading Johnson v Unisys Ltd: HL 23 Mar 2001
Three appeals against the levels of damages awards were heard together, and the court considered the principles to be applied.
Held: In assessing compensation following a libel, the essential question was how much loss and damage did the . .
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 . .
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 . .
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. . .
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. . .
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 . .
questions as to the meaning of the word ‘defamatory’ and as to the nature of an action for defamation. . .
Assessment of damages after offer of amends.
Held: the Court’s award of damages serves as ‘an outward and visible sign of vindication’ . .
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 . .
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 . .
. .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
Consent to amendment of defence wrongfully refused without finding of mala fides. . .
A quia timet action in a defamation case must specify the precise words which are expected to be used. . .
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 . .
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 . .
The defendant sought to strike out a claim in defamation. Acting on behalf of his client the solicitor defendant was said to have called a journalist and defamed the claimant. The words were denied.
Held: Assuming (which was denied) that the . .
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 . .
The claimant alleged trade mark infringement by the respondents by the use of a mark in a pop-up advert.
Held: The own-name defence to trade mark infringement is limited. Some confusion may be allowed if overall the competition was not unfair . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
Parents of a child had resisted care proceedings, and now wished the BBC to be able to make a TV programme about their case. They applied to the court for the judgment to be released. Applications were also made to have a police officer’s and . .
Whether report of decision of a GMC disciplinary panel had statutory qualified privilege. . .
The defendant firm of solicitors sought leave to appeal against an injunction requiring them not to act for a client in making a bid to take over the business of the claimant, a former client of the firm.
Held: Leave was refused. The appeal . .
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
The claimants sought damages for defamation and breach of contract. The claimants had purchased a business from the defendant, which contract included a clause requiring the defendant to say nothing damaging about the business. The defendant . .
The claimant had taken a lease of property from a local authority. Relying upon an option for renewal, he invested substantially in the property, but it was then decided that the option was ultra vires.
Held: Property rights protected under . .
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 . .
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 . .
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: . .
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 . .
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 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 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. . .
Application to fix compensation for defamation. . .
Application to fix compensation under 1996 Act. . .
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 . .
. .
Dispute as to quantification of damages for libel. An offer of amends had been made, but the parties could not agree the sum payable. . .
The defendant journalist had published confidential material obtained from the claimant’s secure hospital at Ashworth. The hospital now appealed against the refusal of an order for him to to disclose his source. Held: The appeal failed. Given that over 200 people may have been the source, the claimant’s argument based on the burden on fellow … Continue reading Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd: CA 21 Feb 2007
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical records. Held: The need for involvement by the third party in the source’s wrongdoing is a … Continue reading Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd: QBD 7 Feb 2006
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
The court set out the applicable legal principles in trade mark infringement. The court considered the elements necessary to establish a defence under s10(6): The primary objective of section 10(6) of the 1996 Act is to permit comparative advertising . . As long as the use of a competitor’s mark is honest, there is nothing … Continue reading Cable and Wireless plc v British Telecommunications plc: ChD 1998
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 Plaintiff, a credit bookmaker successfully sued the Bank in libel. The libel proved was writing the words ‘not sufficient’ on a cheque issued by the Plaintiff when they dishonoured it. He would have had sufficient funds ad the bank followed his instructions to stop an earlier cheque. As applied to cheques, s 49(12) of … Continue reading Davidson v Barclays Bank Ltd: 1940
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception to state immunity. Held: The Kingdom’s appeal succeeded. The protection of state immunity was essentially a … Continue reading Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others: HL 14 Jun 2006
In an action for libel, the Judge is not bound to state to the jury, as matter of law, whether the publication complained of be a libel or not ; but the proper course is for him to define what is a libel in point of law, and to leave it to the jury to … Continue reading Parmiter v Coupland And Another: 1840
