The parties were father and son, living at first in the US. On the son’s wife becoming seriously ill, the son returned to Scotland. The father advanced a substantal sum for the purchase of a property to live in, but the son put the properties in his own name. The father sought a conveyance of … Continue reading McGraddie v McGraddie and Another (Scotland): SC 31 Jul 2013
A defendant cannot rely in mitigation of damages on the fact that similar defamatory statements have been published about the same claimant by other persons. Citations:  AC 371 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019 Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act The … Continue reading Associated Newspapers Ltd v Dingle: HL 1974
Ascertaining Meaning of Words for Defamation The Daily Telegraph had published an article headed ‘Inquiry on Firm by City Police’ and the Daily Mail had published an article headed ‘Fraud Squad Probe Firm’. The plaintiffs claimed that those articles carried the meaning that they were guilty of fraud. The defendants admitted that the articles were … Continue reading Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd: HL 1964
ECHR Positive obligationsArticle 8-1Respect for private lifeFailure adequately to investigate unauthorised disclosure of confidential information or to protect reputation and right to be presumed innocent of parent suspected of child abuse: violationsRespect for family lifeRevocation of adoption while criminal proceedings for suspected child abuse were still pending: violationFailure adequately to investigate unauthorised disclosure of confidential … Continue reading Ageyevy v Russia: ECHR 18 Apr 2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for resolution of VTB’s tort claims, and nor that there was a proper basis for piercing the corporate veil. … Continue reading VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others: SC 6 Feb 2013
(Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal) Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury said 138 that the criticism of the single meaning rule’s artificiality and (implicitly) its irrationality was misplaced. He suggested that the identification of a single meaning to be accorded a statement arose ‘in many areas of law, most notably . . the interpretation of statutes, … Continue reading Oriental Daily Publisher Ltd v Ming Pao Holdings Ltd: 2013
The former MP for Eastbourne had brought an action for defamation against the appellant, the current MP and his agent in respect of election materials used by them. The appellants had relied on the defence of fair comment, and now appealed against rulings that the words complained of had been allegations of fact, and not … Continue reading Waterson v Lloyd MP and Another: CA 28 Feb 2013
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
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000
Application to determine meanings. Held: When asked to determine the meanings in a statement alleged to be defamatory, the court is not restricted to the meaning put forward by the parties: ‘The test is that of the ‘ordinary reader’. That concept is wide enough to embrace, in cases such as the present, the readers of … Continue reading Johnston v League Publications Ltd and Others: QBD 26 Mar 2014
The parties were former footballers involved in charitable works. The claimant said that an allegation by the defendant that he the claimant had released for publication a text message in which the the defendant was said to have used extremely offensive language was defamatory. Though denying that he had released it, the defendant now argued … Continue reading Rufus v Elliott: QBD 1 Nov 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 claimant had begin proceedings against the defendant legal publishers, saying that their summary of a cash had brought was defamatory. He now sought leave to extend the limitation period for his claim, and the defendants argued that, given the very limited publication, the case was not worth pursuing. Held: There had been considerable delay, … Continue reading Bewry v Reed Elseveir (UK) Ltd and Another: QBD 10 Oct 2013
The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first species, which I will call ’cause of action estoppel,’ is that which prevents a party … Continue reading Thoday v Thoday: CA 1964
Application as to meanings of phrases upon which the claim was based. Dingemans J  EWHC 1084 (QB) Bailii Defamation Act 2013 1 England and Wales Defamation Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546271
The newspaper appealed from the award of costs to the claimant who had succeeded in his claim of defamation. Macur, Sharp LJJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd  EWCA Civ 1574 Bailii England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 19-Dec-2013 The claimant policeman alleged defamation in an article published by the … Continue reading Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood: CA 4 Dec 2014
 EWHC 4014 (QB) Bailii England and Wales Citing: See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 1-Aug-2013 The defamation claimant sought relief from sanctions imposed after a failure to comply with orders requiring him to discuss budgets and budgetary assumptions. Held: The claimant had failed to deliver the required costs budget in … Continue reading Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited: QBD 27 Nov 2014
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 claimant alleged defamation by the defendant. In the second action, the policeman claimant alleged defamation by the first claimant. The court heard applications as to the admission of expert evidence, and as to the inclusion or otherwise of parts of the witness statements. Warby J  EWHC 3590 (QB) Bailii England and Wales Citing: … Continue reading Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 31 Oct 2014
The court gave its reasons for granting an interim injunction to prevent the defendants publshing materials on their web-sites which were said to harrass the claimants. Held: Whilst it was important to protect the identity of the claimants, the need for open justice was also real and the two could be reconciled by anonymisation of … Continue reading QRS v Beach and Another: QBD 26 Sep 2014
The parties had divorced but acrimony continued. H now complained of his arrests after allegations from his former wife that he had breached two orders. He had been released and no charges followed. The court had ruled that W’s complaints were protected by immunity. Held: H’s appeals failed. ‘The policy of the immunity rule applies … Continue reading Crawford v Jenkins: CA 24 Jul 2014
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. The defendants argued that the properties were in any event noisy because of proximity to RAF Mildenhall. … Continue reading Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others: QBD 4 Mar 2011
‘The paying parties appeal against a decision of the High Court reversing a decision of the costs judge, whereby he declined to set aside his earlier order granting an extension of time for serving the points of dispute. The principal issues in this appeal are whether the costs judge was dealing with relief from sanctions … Continue reading Hallam Estates Ltd and Another v Baker: CA 19 May 2014
Application for discovery of documents held by a third party, the Police Complaints Commission) in a defamation action.  EWHC 879 (QB) Bailii England and Wales Citing: See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 1-Aug-2013 The defamation claimant sought relief from sanctions imposed after a failure to comply with orders requiring him … Continue reading Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 27 Mar 2014
ECHR Article 10-1- Freedom of expression Applicant’s precarious financial situation as a result of award of damages for defamation against her: violation Facts – In 2006 the applicant, a pensioner suffering from various illnesses, was found guilty of defaming her lawyer and ordered to pay him 300,000 dinars (RSD) in compensation, together with default interest, … Continue reading Tesic v Serbia: ECHR 11 Feb 2014
Appeal against strike out of claims for defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant had given evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons with material highly critical of the claimant, a member of FIFA’s executive. That evidence was protected by parliamentary priviege, but the claimant said that the defendant … Continue reading Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham: CA 26 Feb 2014
The commercial court will not encourage time wasting procedural applications. Leggatt J summarised the principles that should be applied on an application for relief from sanctions: ‘i) On an application for relief from a sanction under CPR 3.9, it is usually appropriate to start by considering the nature of the non-compliance. If the non-compliance can … Continue reading Summit Navigation Ltd and Another v Generali Romania Asigurare Reasigurare Sa Ardaf Sa and Another: ComC 21 Feb 2014
The claimant was late in serving its particulars of claim. The defendant now requested the strike out of the claim for that default. Held: The court applied the principles set out in Mitchell to refuse consent. Andrew Smith J  EWHC 430 (Comm) Bailii Citing: Cited – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA … Continue reading Associated Electrical Industries Ltd v Alstom UK: ComC 24 Feb 2014
A party in default seeking an out-of-time extension for making a renewed application for permission to appeal (under CPR r 52.3(5)) would have to satisfy the same tests as were applied to the default in Mitchell. Turner J  EWHC 49 (QB) Bailii England and Wales Citing: Cited – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers … Continue reading Webb Resolutions Ltd v E-Surv Ltd: QBD 20 Jan 2014
 EWHC 41 (QB) Bailii England and Wales Citing: Cited – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013 (Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, … Continue reading M A Lloyd and Sons Ltd (T/A KPM Marine) v PPC International Ltd (T/A Professional Powercraft): QBD 20 Jan 2014
 ECHR 941,  ECHR 1218, (2014) 58 EHRR 29 Bailii, Bailii European Convention on Human Rights Human Rights Cited by: See Also – Delfi As v Estonia ECHR 16-Jun-2015 Article 10-1 Freedom to impart information Award of damages against internet news portal for offensive comments posted on its site by anonymous third parties: no … Continue reading Delfi As v Estonia: ECHR 10 Oct 2013
The claimant policeman alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant newspaper. The defendant advanced two substantive defences, a defence of public interest (Reynolds) privilege and justification. After protracted litigation, the claim succeeded, and the court now considered the damages to be awarded. Held: ‘It is possible to pursue journalism said to be in … Continue reading Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd: QBD 19 Dec 2013
The claimant had undertaken a series of nine actions against the several defendants making allegations of discrimination and similar. They had each failed, she had been ordered to pay substantial sums in costs, and was now foamally bankrupt. In these proceedings she alleged defamation in SOSR (Some Other Substantial Reason) hearings. She had stayed other … Continue reading Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others: QBD 20 Dec 2013
Freedom of expression Award of damages against a historian and a publisher for alleging that a public official had collaborated with the state security services during the Communist era: violation Facts – In 2007 a literary and political weekly owned by Irodalom Kft (the second applicant) published a study by a historian, Mr Ungvary (the … Continue reading Ungvary And/Et Irodalom Kft v Hungary: ECHR 3 Dec 2013
Article 8-1 Respect for private life Alleged failure to secure the right to reputation of an applicant whose father was allegedly defamed: no violation Facts – The applicant is the son of Mikhail Putistin, now deceased, a former Dynamo Kyiv football player who took part in a game known as the ‘Death Match’ in 1942. … Continue reading Putistin v Ukraine: ECHR 21 Nov 2013
Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Imposition of suspended sentence on newspaper chief for publishing defamatory article: violation Facts – At the relevant time the applicant was the director of the daily newspaper Il Giornale. In 2004 the newspaper published an article written by a senator criticising a number of members of the national legal service. … Continue reading Belpietro v Italy: ECHR 24 Sep 2013
ECHR Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Freedom to impart information Lack of procedural safeguards when issuing injunction against national newspaper: violation Facts – The applicants were respectively the owner, publisher, editor-in-chief and chief editorial writer of a daily Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyet. In April 2007, in the run-up to the presidential elections, the newspaper published a … Continue reading Cumhuriyet Vakfi And Others v Turkey: ECHR 8 Oct 2013
The applicant complained of a breach of the right to protection of his reputation as a result of the domestic courts’ refusal to rectify defamatory information about his father that had been published in the newspaper Komsomolska Pravda. Mark Villiger, P 16882/03 – Chamber Judgment,  ECHR 1154 Bailii European Convention on Human Rights Citing: … Continue reading Putistin v Ukraine (Football ‘Death Match’): ECHR 21 Nov 2013
The Defendant sought an order that the libel action be struck out under CPR 3.4 (2)(a) and/or (b), or that summary judgment be entered against the Claimant on the whole claim, pursuant to CPR 24.2, on the ground that the claim had no real prospect of success. Tugendhat J  EWHC 3551 (QB) Bailii Defamation, … Continue reading Mireskandari v Centaur Media Plc: QBD 19 Nov 2013
Application for extension of two days to service of particulars of claim. The defendants resisted saying that the court should apply sanctions against the claimant. The claimants applied for relief under rule 3.9. Held: The new rules were against a background where it was recognised that courts had been too ready to grant relief. The … Continue reading Raayan Al Iraq Co Ltd and Others v Trans Victory Marine Inc and Others: ComC 23 Aug 2013
The defendant had failed to comply in all respects with an ‘unless’ order. Held: The court gave relief under CPR 3.9 for two failures which the court described as ‘material in the sense that they were more than trivial’. They were ‘unintentional and minor failings in the course of diligently seeking to comply with the … Continue reading Wyche v Careforce Group Plc: ComC 25 Jul 2013
Application by the Defendant, Squire Sanders LLP, to strike out this libel action under CPR paragraph 4.1 of PD 53, on the ground that the words complained of in this libel action are incapable of bearing the meaning pleaded Sharp J  EWHC 2404 (QB) Bailii Defamation Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516599
Applications as to whether: (a) there should be an adjournment of 4 weeks to enable the Claimant’s new legal representatives to have more time to advise the Claimant, to prepare for the hearing, and to consider further re-re-amendments to the Particulars of Claim; (b) the Claimant should be permitted to re-re-amend the Particulars of Claim … Continue reading Subotic v Knezevic: QBD 14 Oct 2013
The defamation claimant sought relief from sanctions imposed after a failure to comply with orders requiring him to discuss budgets and budgetary assumptions. Held: The claimant had failed to deliver the required costs budget in time, and any costs in the action beyond the court fees would be disallowed. Master McLoud  EWHC 2355 (QB) … Continue reading Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 1 Aug 2013
ECHR Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Award of damages against applicant who denied making the defamatory statements for which he was found liable: Article 10 applicable; violation Facts – In 2003 a municipal court found the applicant jointly and severally liable with the publisher in a civil action in damages brought by a government minister … Continue reading Stojanovic v Croatia: ECHR 19 Sep 2013
ECHR Article 8 Positive obligations Courts’ refusal to order newspaper to remove article damaging applicant’s reputation from its Internet archive: no violation Facts – The applicants are lawyers who won a libel case against two journalists working for the daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita following the publication of an article alleging that they had made a fortune … Continue reading Wegrzynowski And Smolczewski v Poland (Legal Summary): ECHR 16 Jul 2013
The parties had settled a defamation claim in the Isle of Man and sums were paid to the settle te action and costs. Before they were released, the Coroner in the Isle of Man issued Notices of Arrest to the solicitors holding the funds. The court was now asked whether the sums were held for … Continue reading Irving and Another v Darbyshire and Others: Admn 29 Jul 2013
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to be applied to avoid … Continue reading In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication): HL 28 Oct 2004
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
ECHR Article 10-1Freedom of expressionCompensation award against Bar Council President comments regarding prison warders’ ‘search’ of female member of the Bar: violationFacts – The case concerned defamation proceedings against the President of the Moscow City Bar for critical statements he had made on a live television show about the conduct of male prison warders who … Continue reading Reznik v Russia: ECHR 4 Apr 2013
rattan_ubsComC0314 The claimant had sought an order limiting the defendant’s costs after alleged non-compliance with directions, and failing to file a costs budget. Held: The application was rejected. The Commercial Court will firmly discourage the taking of futile and time wasting procedural points: ‘the claimant’s argument has not only increased the expense of this CMC … Continue reading Rattan v UBS Ag, London Branch: ComC 12 Mar 2014
The court considered the duty of confidentiality owed by a banker to his client. Bankes LJ said: ‘At the present day I think it may be asserted with confidence that the duty is a legal one arising out of contract, and that the duty is not absolute but qualified. It is not possible to frame … Continue reading Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England: CA 1924
The parties were embroiled in a company dispute with allegations of conduct prejudicial to minority shareholders. An application was now made for sanctions for a failure to comply with court directions. Held: Unless and until a higher Court has said that the approach in Robert is no longer to be followed, it was binding and … Continue reading Kaneria v Kaneria and Others: ChD 15 Apr 2014
ECJ On a proper construction, Article 57 of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments as amended means that, where a Contracting State is also a contracting party to another convention on a specific matter containing rules on jurisdiction, that specialized convention precludes the application of the provisions of the Brussels Convention … Continue reading The owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship ‘Tatry’ v The owners of the ship ‘Maciej Rataj’: ECJ 6 Dec 1994
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had been bound by decisions of the House of Lords despite those decisions being ruled incorrect by … Continue reading Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: SC 10 Dec 2014
The claimant appealed against a finding that the defendant Amazon was bound to succeed in its defence under the 2002 Regulations against the claim in defamation, and that the claim should be dismissed as an abuse of process under Jameel. He had constructed a series of false adverse reviews of the claimant’s book in order … Continue reading McGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others: CA 5 Feb 2013
The appellant was involved in very substantial litigation with the respondents. As a member of the Saudi Royal family he said that by convention he was not allowed to sign a witness statement, and appealed inter alia against orders requiring him to do so. Held: The appeal failed. This had been a case management decision, … Continue reading Prince Abdulaziz v Apex Global Management Ltd and Another: SC 26 Nov 2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription had been cancelled by the Tribunal. Lord Carlile appealed … Continue reading Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 12 Nov 2014
A local authority applied for a reporting restriction order. The Italian mother when pregnant suffered mental illness. She ceased treatment to protect her unborn child and became psychotic and delusional and was detained in a mental hospital. She had had two previous births by caesarian section, and the doctors view was that a natural birth … Continue reading In re P (A Child): FD 17 Dec 2013
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story showing a picture of her leaving a drug addiction clinic, along with … Continue reading Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1): HL 6 May 2004
The claimant MP had a bad tempered altercation with police officers outside Downing Street. He sued the defendant newspaper in defamation saying that they had falsely accused him of calling te officers ‘plebs’. One officer now sued the MP saying that the MP’s public denials amounted to defamation of the officer as a liar. The … Continue reading Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 28 Jul 2014
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
A negligent misrepresentation was made in a telex sent from the United States but received and acted upon in England. The judge had set aside leave to serve the document out of the jurisdiction. Held: The appeal succeeded. The transmission was a tort committed within the jurisdiction within the meaning of Order 11 rule 1(1)(h).Robert … Continue reading Cordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth): CA 1984
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act. Held: The … Continue reading Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014
The claimants made a television programme about the lives of people on benefits. The defendant published an article critical of many, and included a statement ‘Three more homes in the road where residents claim they have been portrayed as scroungers and lowlife by Channel 4 are owned by the Midland Heart housing association. Its chief … Continue reading Cooke and Another v MGN Ltd and Another: QBD 13 Aug 2014
The plaintiff complained of an article written in the Daily Mail which included the reporting of a report of a Parliamentary select committee. The reporting of the select committee’s report was privileged under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. At trial the judge held that the part of the article which reported on the proceedings in … Continue reading Dingle v Associated Newspapers: HL 1964
(Appeal from High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) It was not an infringement of a defendant’s right to a fair trial where the costs of defending the case brought against him would be substantial, but where his solicitors would be paid only a small fixed fee sum. In this case the defendants had the benefit of … Continue reading McLean and Another v Buchanan, Procurator Fiscal and Another: PC 24 May 2001
The parties disputed the trusts upon which three Gurdwaras (Sikh Temples) were held. The Court of Appeal had held that the issues underlying the dispute were to be found in matters of the faith of the Sikh parties, and had ordered a permanent stay. Held: The appeal was allowed. The matter was justiciable and should … Continue reading Shergill and Others v Khaira and Others: SC 11 Jun 2014
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers. Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered the circumstances in which it could depart from a … Continue reading Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd: CA 28 Jul 1944
The claimant and appellant had been employer and employee who had fallen out, with a settlement in 2005. The appellant then began an unpleasant and obsessive personal vendetta against Mr Hayes, complaining to public bodies with allegations of tax evasion, fraud and similar. Several investigations all concluded against the appellant, and indeed disproved in 2007. … Continue reading Hayes v Willoughby: SC 20 Mar 2013
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the restraint which had been imposed infringed the human right of free speech. When the 1998 Act was brought in, … Continue reading Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others: HL 14 Oct 2004
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the meeting was true but he had become so anxious to have the other councillor … Continue reading Horrocks v Lowe: HL 1974
No defamation for deceased grandfather ECHR Article 8-1 Respect for private life Dismissal of claim for defamation of applicant’s grandfather, the former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin: inadmissible Facts – The applicant is the grandson of the former Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin. In 2009 he sued the Novaya Gazeta newspaper for defamation after it published an … Continue reading Dzhugashvili v Russia (Dec) (Joseph Stalin): ECHR 9 Dec 2014
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very substantially the costs which might be made in his favour. Held: The appeal was refused. It was inherent … Continue reading Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 27 Nov 2013
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
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
The claimant alleged defamation in a tweet by the defendant. The court now decided as a preliminary point, the meaning of the words: ‘Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*’. There had been other but widespread (mistaken) allegations against a senior Conservative of child sexual abuse. Held: The text contained an innuendo that the claimant … Continue reading McAlpine v Bercow: QBD 24 May 2013
Whether the defendant could rely on the defences of truth, honest opinion, and publication on matter of public interest which are provided for by ss 2, 3 and 4 of the Defamation Act 2013.
Held: No. . .
A strike out was sought alleging gross delay and an abuse of process.
Held: The strike out was granted both as to the claim and counter claims.
Hamblen J discussed first the issues surrounding delay: ‘In summary, the authorities provide . .
Craigdallie stated settled law: ‘My Lords, I disclaim altogether any right in this or any other civil court of this realm to discuss the truth or reasonableness of any of the doctrines of this or any other religious association, or to say whether . .
The defendants requested a preliminary ruling that the words complained of in the claimant’s action were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
Held: Some of the pleaded meanings were not supported, but others were clearly defamatory, . .
The parties competed in providing employment law services. The claimant complained of slanderous comments said to have been made by the defendant in discussions with a firm of solicitors seeking to select a firm. The claimant now appealed against . .
The claimant said that the defendant, in its Top Gear programme in a review of its car, caused it damage through malicious falsehood and defamation. They appealed against a finding that the words used were incapable of bearing the defamatory . .
The claimant was involved in defamation proceedings against two major newspapers. The defendant was said to have repeated the story alleged to be defamatory with additional allegations of criminal behaviour in Tweets and in his blog. . .
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 female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board’s treatment of her . .
Each defendant sought summary rejection of defamation claims by the claimant as regards reports of breaches of harassment injunctions granted against her.
Held: ‘There is no doubt that the proceedings are an attempt by the Claimant to . .
FTTTx HMRC directed to provide further and better particulars – unless order breached – whether HMRC should be barred – whether Mitchell applies – HMRC barred. . .
PROCEDURE – HMRC barred from further participation – FTT rule 8 – whether FTT applied correct principles – no – whether FTT’s decision outside reasonable exercise of judicial discretion – yes – decision set aside and remade – no barring order . .
The court set out to settle the precise defamatory meanings alleged. Trustees of an Education Centre had appointed a relative of three existing trustees to join them. The claimant chairman resigned, objecting to what he said was poor governence. The . .
High Court of Australia – The claim sought to sidestep the rule giving immuity to witnesses before a court by alleging a conspiracy to give false evidence.
Held: Starke J said: ‘But it does not matter whether the action is framed as an action . .
The claimant alleged defamation in an article on the defendant’s web-site discussing a failure of his earlier defamation action. He now sought directions for a jury trial. . .
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
The claimant had issued proceedings in time, but then the limitation period expired before it was served, and in the meantime the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed against an automatic extension of time for service granted to the . .
The plaintiff began a defamation action against seven defendants. Each had admitted publication but pleaded justification. The claims against the fourth to seventh defendants were dismissed by consent, and the third had gone into liquidation. The . .
Judgment on the second stage of the trial of a claim for libel and malicious falsehood.
Held: Tugendhat J adopted the meaning ‘more likely than not to cause pecuniary damage’ for ‘calculated to’. . .
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 . .