Click the case name for better results:

Tolstoy-Miloslavsky v Aldington: CA 27 Dec 1995

Solicitors who unreasonably commence proceedings may be subject to a wasted costs order, but there should be no award of costs against a solicitor solely because he acted without a fee. An award of costs should not be made against a solicitor who had acted for a client in a defamation action which was lost, … Continue reading Tolstoy-Miloslavsky v Aldington: CA 27 Dec 1995

Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another: CA 3 Mar 2005

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 profession a barrister, and the court did not accept that he could not present his case … Continue reading Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another: CA 3 Mar 2005

Manoussakis and Others v Greece: ECHR 26 Sep 1996

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 proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings Citations: [1996] ECHR 41, 18748/91, (1997) 23 EHRR 387, 2 BHRC 110 Links: Worldlii, Bailii Jurisdiction: Human Rights Cited by: … Continue reading Manoussakis and Others v Greece: ECHR 26 Sep 1996

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. Citations: Times 24-Mar-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1277 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Lloyd’s Bank Plc v Rogers and Another QBD 11-Apr-1996 Claim may be added outside limitation period where based on same facts. … Continue reading Lloyds Bank Plc v Rogers and Another: CA 20 Dec 1996

Jones v Pollard, Mirror Group Newspapers Limited and Bailey: CA 12 Dec 1996

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 conceded in evidence that he was a persistent womaniser, but denied procuring prostitutes, though a tape of a conversation with a … Continue reading Jones v Pollard, Mirror Group Newspapers Limited and Bailey: CA 12 Dec 1996

McDonald’s Corporation and Another v Steel and Morris: CA 17 Oct 1996

A trial judge’s decisions should not normally be set aside unless they constituted a denial of justice to one or other of the parties. Citations: Times 22-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 755 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – McDonald’s Corporation v Steel and Another CA 14-Apr-1994 Defence paragraphs alleging justification were to be struck … Continue reading McDonald’s Corporation and Another v Steel and Morris: CA 17 Oct 1996

Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc: CA 30 Sep 1996

Judges: Simon Brown LJ Citations: [1996] EWCA Civ 618, [1997] 1 All ER 655, [1997] EMLR 117 Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1952 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc QBD 28-Oct-1994 Qualified privilege reporting statutory proceedings stays despite doubts on findings. Jonathan Sumption QC said: ‘Historically, qualified privilege … Continue reading Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc: CA 30 Sep 1996

Jones v Vans Colina: CA 15 Aug 1996

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 neither a party to the application for leave under section 42(3) nor was entitled … Continue reading Jones v Vans Colina: CA 15 Aug 1996

Silcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 24 May 1996

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 against the striking out of his actions for conspiracy to pervert the … Continue reading Silcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 24 May 1996

Harrods Ltd v Harrodian School: CA 3 Apr 1996

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 said: ‘Passing off is a wrongful invasion of property vested in the … Continue reading Harrods Ltd v Harrodian School: CA 3 Apr 1996

Lancashire County Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd: CA 3 Apr 1996

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 insurer contended that the use of the word ‘compensation’ excluded awards of exemplary damages. Held: The contention was … Continue reading Lancashire County Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd: CA 3 Apr 1996

Berkoff v Burchill and and Times Newspapers Limited: CA 31 Jul 1996

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 they were defamatory in those circumstances. An allegation that an actor was hideously … Continue reading Berkoff v Burchill and and Times Newspapers Limited: CA 31 Jul 1996

Mackenzie v Business Magazines (UK) Ltd and Others: CA 18 Jan 1996

Consent to amendment of defence wrongfully refused without finding of mala fides. Citations: Times 05-Mar-1996 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited (2) QBD 23-Apr-1999 Evidence of Reputation Admissible but Limited The plaintiff had brought an action for damages for defamation. The defendant wished to amend its defence to … Continue reading Mackenzie v Business Magazines (UK) Ltd and Others: CA 18 Jan 1996

John v MGN Ltd: CA 12 Dec 1995

Defamation – Large Damages Awards MGN appealed as to the level of damages awarded against it namely pounds 350,000 damages, comprising pounds 75,000 compensatory damages and pounds 275,000 exemplary damages. The newspaper contended that as a matter of principle there is no scope in law for awarding exemplary damages, either generally or in the particular … Continue reading John v MGN Ltd: CA 12 Dec 1995

Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd v Presse Alliance SA: ECJ 7 Mar 1995

On a proper construction of the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the … Continue reading Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd v Presse Alliance SA: ECJ 7 Mar 1995

Stern v Piper and Others: CA 21 May 1996

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 justified in respect of extracts from affirmations in pending lawsuits. The court applied … Continue reading Stern v Piper and Others: CA 21 May 1996

Ratiu, Karmel, Regent House Properties Ltd v Conway: CA 22 Nov 2005

The claimant sought damages for defamation. The defendant through their company had accused him acting in such a way as to allow a conflict of interest to arise. They said that he had been invited to act on a proposed purchase but had used the information to put in a higher offer himself. The claimant … Continue reading Ratiu, Karmel, Regent House Properties Ltd v Conway: CA 22 Nov 2005

Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others: QBD 14 Oct 2005

The court decided the issue of what meaning the words complained of would have been understood to bear. The ordinary reader of an article may well not think in legalistic terms such as ‘strong grounds to suspect’ or ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ when articulating his or her impression of the meaning conveyed by the words. … Continue reading Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others: QBD 14 Oct 2005

Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2): CA 3 Feb 2005

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 principle of the law of libel in this country that a claimant, whether individual or corporate, does … Continue reading Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2): CA 3 Feb 2005

Countryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others: Admn 29 Jul 2005

The various claimants sought to challenge the 2004 Act by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ‘a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market freedoms protected by European law; and an unjust interference with economic rights.’ Held: ‘We have concluded … Continue reading Countryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others: Admn 29 Jul 2005

George Galloway MP v The Telegraph Group Ltd: CA 25 Jan 2006

The defendant appealed agaiunst a finding that it had defamed the claimant by repeating the contents of papers found after the invasion of Iraq which made claims against the claimant. The paper had not sought to justify the claims, relying on Reynolds privilege. Held: The appeal failed. The judge had applied the correct tests for … Continue reading George Galloway MP v The Telegraph Group Ltd: CA 25 Jan 2006

Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar v Shimidzu (Berllaque, Intervenor): PC 28 Jun 2005

(Gibraltar) The appellants sought to argue that the failure to allow an acquitted defendant any possible order for costs was a breach of the Constitution. Held: Section 8 of the Constitution, like its analogue article 6 of the European Convention, seeks to guarantee the procedural fairness of the criminal process. Though the Convention is not … Continue reading Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar v Shimidzu (Berllaque, Intervenor): PC 28 Jun 2005

Mothew (T/a Stapley and Co) v Bristol and West Building Society: CA 24 Jul 1996

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 to further borrowing when he knew that they were using an overdraft to obtain further funding. The … Continue reading Mothew (T/a Stapley and Co) v Bristol and West Building Society: CA 24 Jul 1996

C v Mirror Group Newspapers and Others: CA 21 Jun 1996

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: ‘Facts relevant to cause’ referred to those facts necessary to be pleaded but … Continue reading C v Mirror Group Newspapers and Others: CA 21 Jun 1996

In re Z (A Minor) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication): CA 31 Jul 1995

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

British Airways Plc v Ryanair Limited: ChD 25 Oct 2000

The claimant alleged that disparaging adverts by the defendant infringed its trade marks and amounted to the tort of malicious falsehood. Held: There was no dispute that the mark had been used. The Act could not be used to prevent any use of another’s trade mark in comparitive advertising. In this case the advertisement, though … Continue reading British Airways Plc v Ryanair Limited: ChD 25 Oct 2000

Abu v MGN Ltd (Practice Note): QBD 2002

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

Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd: 10 Dec 1996

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

Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 1 Mar 2005

The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the application, and now appealed its refusal. Held: The court restated the practice on the making of … Continue reading Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 1 Mar 2005

Cadam v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd: CA 1959

The defendants had published an article stating simply and solely that a writ had been issued against the four plaintiffs claiming damages for alleged conspiracy to defraud. They pleaded justification, based on the issue of the writ itself. The plaintiffs attacked this plea on the grounds that it offended against the repetition rule. Held: The … Continue reading Cadam v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd: CA 1959

Lloyd’s Bank Plc v Rogers and Another: QBD 11 Apr 1996

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

Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005

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

Pressos Compania Naviera S A And Others v Belgium: ECHR 20 Nov 1995

When determining whether a claimant has possessions or property within the meaning of Article I the court may have regard to national law and will generally do so unless the national law is incompatible with the object and purpose of Article 1. Any interference with the enjoyment of property must be justifiable as being in … Continue reading Pressos Compania Naviera S A And Others v Belgium: ECHR 20 Nov 1995

Shevill and Others v Presse Alliance SA: HL 26 Jul 1996

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

British Coal Corporation v National Union of Mineworkers and Another: QBD 28 Jun 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

Bains and Others v Moore and Others: QBD 15 Feb 2017

The claimant anti-asbestos campaigners complained that the defendant investigators had infringed their various rights of privacy. They now sought discovery to support the claim. Held: the contents of the witness statements do show that it is more than speculative that these Claimants could, if their recollection was prompted by seeing documents, formulate a claim with … Continue reading Bains and Others v Moore and Others: QBD 15 Feb 2017

Smith v ADVFN Plc and others: QBD 25 Jul 2008

The claimant had brought multiple actions in defamation against anonymous posters on an online forum. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions. The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs orders. Held: It was arguable that many of the postings made to the forum should … Continue reading Smith v ADVFN Plc and others: QBD 25 Jul 2008

Brett Wilson Llp v Person(s) Unknown, Responsible for The Operation and Publication of The Website www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com: QBD 16 Sep 2015

The claimant solicitors sought remedies against the unknown publishers of the respondent website which was said to publish material defamatory of them, and to ampunt to harassment. Held: The alleged defamatory meanings were not challenged by the defendants. The pleaded allegations made out a case for the grant of injunctions against the defendants. The court … Continue reading Brett Wilson Llp v Person(s) Unknown, Responsible for The Operation and Publication of The Website www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com: QBD 16 Sep 2015

Associated Newspapers Ltd v Murray: CA 15 May 2015

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

Occidental Exploration and Production Company vRepublic of Ecuador: CA 9 Sep 2005

The parties had arbitrated their dispute in London under a bilateral investment treaty between the US and Ecuador. The republic sought to appeal the arbitration. The applicant now appealed an order that the English High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The treaty was intended to encourage bilateral trading … Continue reading Occidental Exploration and Production Company vRepublic of Ecuador: CA 9 Sep 2005

Financial Times Ltd and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Dec 2009

The claimants said that an order that they deliver up documents leaked to them regarding a possible takeover violated their right to freedom of expression. They complained that such disclosure might lead to the identification of journalistic sources. Held: The protection of journalistic sources was part of the protection of freedom of expression: ‘protection of … Continue reading Financial Times Ltd and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Dec 2009

Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions: SC 22 Jul 2015

Questions on Entry must be answered B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that Schedule. She appealed, saying that … Continue reading Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions: SC 22 Jul 2015

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Weston and Another: ChD 5 Sep 2014

The Secretary of State sought company director disqualification orders against the defendants saying they had been convicted of making false instruments. The Insolvency service had decided against such proceedings, and the Crown Court judge, when sentencing them had considered and rejected orders. The defendants now argued that the instant proceedings were an abuse of process. … Continue reading The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Weston and Another: ChD 5 Sep 2014

Ladd v Marshall: CA 29 Nov 1954

Conditions for new evidence on appeal At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for a retrial. Held: The Court of Appeal refused to … Continue reading Ladd v Marshall: CA 29 Nov 1954

Martin v Watson: HL 13 Jul 1995

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

Henderson v London Borough of Hackney and Another: QBD 5 Jul 2010

The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in a referral letter sent to a third party. She had been dismissed from a non-teaching post after having been found using school computers to access pornography. The letter had reported the findings to the third party a ‘relevant employer’ under the Regulations. The letter had suggested misbehaviour … Continue reading Henderson v London Borough of Hackney and Another: QBD 5 Jul 2010

G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal): HL 25 Apr 1985

The House asked when a decision, on the facts, of a first instance court is so wrong as to allow it to be overturned on appeal. Held: The epithet ‘wrong’ is to be applied to the substance of the decision made by the lower court. ‘Certainly it would not be useful to inquire whether different … Continue reading G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal): HL 25 Apr 1985

Regina v Derby Magistrates Court Ex Parte B: HL 19 Oct 1995

No Breach of Solicitor Client Confidence Allowed B was charged with the murder of a young girl. He made a confession to the police, but later changed his story, saying his stepfather had killed the girl. He was acquitted. The stepfather was then charged with the murder. At his committal for trial, B was called … Continue reading Regina v Derby Magistrates Court Ex Parte B: HL 19 Oct 1995

Murray v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 15 Apr 2014

Application to read unilateral statement in satisfaction of defamation claim. Held: It follows from the terms of section 3 of the 1996 Act that the court should not regard as normal an oral hearing of submissions by a defendant that a claimant should be refused permission to make a unilateral statement. That would involve further … Continue reading Murray v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 15 Apr 2014

In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof): HL 14 Dec 1995

Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still been been found. Held: A care order could … Continue reading In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof): HL 14 Dec 1995

Gillick v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another: CA 19 Oct 1995

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 … Continue reading Gillick v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another: CA 19 Oct 1995

Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd; 10 Dec 1996

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

Crampton v Nugawela; 23 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

Martin v Watson: HL 14 Jul 1995

References: Times 14-Jul-1995, Gazette 06-Sep-1995, Independent 19-Jul-1995, [1996] AC 74, [1995] 3 WLR 318, [1995] 3 All ER 559 Coram: Lord Keith of Kinkel Ratio 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 … Continue reading Martin v Watson: HL 14 Jul 1995

Acts

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

Steedman, Clohosy, Smith, Kiernan, Newman, Creevy, Anderson v The British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 23 Oct 2001

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

Buckley v Dalziel: QBD 3 May 2007

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 Dalziel made oral complaints to the officer who attended upon them. He later returned and Mr … Continue reading Buckley v Dalziel: QBD 3 May 2007

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: HL 28 Oct 1999

Fair Coment on Political Activities The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the claimant’s status as a politician. Held: The appeal failed (Lords Hope … Continue reading Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: HL 28 Oct 1999

King v Telegraph Group Ltd: CA 18 May 2004

The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation. Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being represented under a conditional fee agreement. The court considered that the amount of costs being incurred served to act … Continue reading King v Telegraph Group Ltd: CA 18 May 2004

Lincoln v Daniels: CA 1961

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

Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd and others v Vetplus Ltd: CA 20 Jun 2007

The claimants appealed refusal of an order restricting comparative advertising materials for the defendant’s competing veterinary medicine. The claimant said that the rule against prior restraint applicable to defamation and other tort proceedings did not apply to trade mark infringement. Held: The rule against prior restraint applied to actions involving reputation, but did not apply … Continue reading Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd and others v Vetplus Ltd: CA 20 Jun 2007

English and Another v Hastie Publishing Ltd: 31 Jan 2002

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. Judges: Gray J Citations: [2002] All ER (D) 11 Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited … Continue reading English and Another v Hastie Publishing Ltd: 31 Jan 2002

Uren v John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd: 2 Jun 1966

(High Court of Australia) ‘It seems to us that, in a case where there is no qualified privilege to report or repeat the defamatory statements of others, the whole cohesion of the law of defamation would be destroyed, if it were permissible merely to plead and prove that the defamatory statement was made by another; … Continue reading Uren v John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd: 2 Jun 1966

Collins v Brebner: CA 19 Jun 1997

The defendant solicitor appealed refusal of an order to strike out the claim. The claimant alleged breach of trust. The claimant asserted a fraudulent witholding of information to suggest that any breach of trust had happened. The defendant said that the claimant had sufficient knowledge independent of any concealment to begin the limitation period. Held: … Continue reading Collins v Brebner: CA 19 Jun 1997

Mosley and Another v Focus Magazin Verlag Gmbh: CA 29 Jun 2001

The claimant appealed against summary dismissal of his claim in defamation. Judges: Pill, Thorpe, Mantell LJJ Citations: [2001] EWCA Civ 1030 Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 8(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Budu v The British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Mar-2010 The defendant sought to strike out the claimant’s action in defamation. … Continue reading Mosley and Another v Focus Magazin Verlag Gmbh: CA 29 Jun 2001

Shah and Another v Standard Chartered Bank: CA 2 Apr 1998

The plaintiffs appealed against refusal of orders striking out the defences of justification to their libel action. Held: The words complained of bore an accusation of money laundering. A plea of justification based upon a reasonable belief in the claimant’s criminality, could not be established by simply stating that publication had been a repetition of … Continue reading Shah and Another v Standard Chartered Bank: CA 2 Apr 1998

Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another: SC 27 Jul 2011

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

Cleese v Clark and Another: QBD 6 Feb 2003

Assessment of damages after offer of amends. Held: the Court’s award of damages serves as ‘an outward and visible sign of vindication’ Judges: Eady J Citations: [2003] EWHC 137 (QB), [2004] EMLR 3 Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 3 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017 Slander damages … Continue reading Cleese v Clark and Another: QBD 6 Feb 2003

Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: QBD 12 Dec 2002

The court considered the possible affront to jurors in a defamation action when asked to decide some elements of an action, but not others. Judges: Gray J Citations: [2002] EWHC 2726 (QB), [2002] QB 321 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd and others CA 23-Jan-2001 The … Continue reading Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: QBD 12 Dec 2002

In re The Alexandros T: SC 6 Nov 2013

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

Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co: HL 13 Feb 1880

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

McGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others: QBD 30 Mar 2012

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

Marrinan v Vibert: CA 2 Jan 1963

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

McKeown v British Horseracing Authority: QBD 12 Mar 2010

The jockey claimant challenged disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the defendant authority. Held: The findings were upheld in part but remitted for consideration of giving the claimant opportunity to challenge certain evidence. Citations: [2010] EWHC 508 (QB) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Nagle v Fielden CA 1966 The applicant, a … Continue reading McKeown v British Horseracing Authority: QBD 12 Mar 2010

Barron and Others v Collins: QBD 6 Feb 2017

Three MPs had sued in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused them of knowing of the sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham without doing anything about it. Liability now being established, the court set out to assess the damages payable under an offer of amends. Held: The court set starting points of pounds 10,000 … Continue reading Barron and Others v Collins: QBD 6 Feb 2017

Kordowski v Hudson: QBD 21 Oct 2011

The claimant alleged that the defendant, the chief executive of the Law Society had slandered him in a conversation with another senior lawyer. The claimant now sought summary judgment against the claimant, saying that the defence had no realistic prospect of success. Held: The claim was dismissed as an abuse. Whilst the alleged libel was … Continue reading Kordowski v Hudson: QBD 21 Oct 2011

Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 20 Jun 2011

The defendant sought clarification through the court as to the meanings inherent in the words complained of. Held: The application failed. ‘I do not consider the ordinary reasonable reader would be perverse to conclude that the suspicions arguably raised in the headlines are not dispelled by the text of the article itself; and I have … Continue reading Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 20 Jun 2011

Khader v Aziz and Another: QBD 31 Jul 2009

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 allegations made by the claimant were true as to what had happened, the claimant … Continue reading Khader v Aziz and Another: QBD 31 Jul 2009

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another (No 4): QBD 4 Mar 2009

Orders were sought to strike out part of the defendants defence of justification to an allegation of defamation. Held: Where there remains the possibility of a jury trial, it becomes especially important to identify the issues the jurors are to resolve and the facts they are invited to find. Judges: Eady J Citations: [2009] EWHC … Continue reading Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another (No 4): QBD 4 Mar 2009

Reed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs Com Ltd: CA 3 Mar 2004

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 in all the circumstances. No confusion was intended; they wanted only to associate their … Continue reading Reed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs Com Ltd: CA 3 Mar 2004

Karim v Newsquest Media Group Ltd: QBD 27 Oct 2009

The defendant sought a strike out of the claim in defamation, saying that postings made on its web-sites were fair and accurate reports of court proceedings published contemporaneously. The claimant solicitor had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings by the Law Society. The articles had been removed on the day a complaint was made. Held: … Continue reading Karim v Newsquest Media Group Ltd: QBD 27 Oct 2009

Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Limited v The Corporate Officer of The House of Commons: TCC 28 Oct 1999

The claimant said that the respondent had awarded a contract for works at the House of Commons disregarding its obligations under European law as regards open tendering. Citations: [1999] EWHC Technology 199, 1996 ORB No 1151, (1999) 67 Con LR 1 Links: Bailii Statutes: Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited … Continue reading Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Limited v The Corporate Officer of The House of Commons: TCC 28 Oct 1999

Hamilton v Al Fayed: HL 23 Mar 2000

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 an MP against action for defamation arising from his parliamentary activities. A defendant in an action for … Continue reading Hamilton v Al Fayed: HL 23 Mar 2000

McElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Nov 2001

Grand Chamber – The first applicant said he had been injured by a shot fired by a British soldier who had been carried for two miles into the Republic of Ireland, clinging to the applicant’s vehicle following an incident at a checkpoint. Held: Rules granting the State immunities, did not infringe the applicants’ right to … Continue reading McElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Nov 2001

Regina v Bartle and The Commissioner Of Police For The Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte, Regina v Evans and Another and The Commissioner of Police For The Metropolis and Others (No 1): HL 22 Nov 1998

The government of Spain had issued an arrest warrant and application for extradition in respect of Pinochet Ugarte for his alleged crimes whilst president of Chile. He was arrested in England. He pleaded that he had immunity from prosecution. Held: A head of state’s immunity from prosecution extends only to official acts performed in exercise … Continue reading Regina v Bartle and The Commissioner Of Police For The Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte, Regina v Evans and Another and The Commissioner of Police For The Metropolis and Others (No 1): HL 22 Nov 1998

Brawley v Marczynski and Another: CA 21 Oct 2002

The defendants appealed an award of costs on an indemnity basis against them in the favour of a legally aided claimant. Held: Indemnity costs were often intended to indicate disapproval of a party’s behaviour in an action, and were awarded in several and discretionary circumstances. It was not an objection of principle to say that … Continue reading Brawley v Marczynski and Another: CA 21 Oct 2002