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
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
Bayley J said: Upon the great point, viz. whether it is a good defence to an action for slander for a defendant to show he heard it from another, and at that time named the author, I am of the opinion that it is not’ and ‘the law will not permit a man to recover … Continue reading McPherson v Daniels: 1829
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
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
questions as to the meaning of the word ‘defamatory’ and as to the nature of an action for defamation. Judges: Neill LJ Citations: [1996] EWCA Civ 564, [1997] EMLR 139, [1996] 4 All ER 1008 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.662191
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
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
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
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
An allegation of insolvency was made against a well known businessman. An apology in agreed terms was published after 3 weeks. Held: A jury award of 45,000 in damages was not excessive for a libel despite an apology having been given. The plaintiff’s prominence was a relevant circumstance. Citations: Times 26-Jul-1996, [1996] EMLR 493 Jurisdiction: … Continue reading Kiam v Neill and Another (No 2): CA 26 Jul 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
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
Words are defamatory if they allege certain acts irrespective of any quality attributed by the defendant. Citations: Times 15-Jul-1996 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.78501
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
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
A quia timet action in a defamation case must specify the precise words which are expected to be used. Citations: Times 28-Feb-1996, [1996] 3 All ER 707 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Affirmed – Best v Charter Medical of England Ltd and Another CA 26-Oct-2001 The Civil Procedure Rules did not alter the previous … Continue reading British Data Management Plc v Boxer Commercial Removals Plc and Another: CA 28 Feb 1996
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
In a defamation action, it is open to the defendant to justify the imputation by establishing that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff from an objective point of view.Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘But the jury are concerned with whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff from an objective point of view. When … Continue reading Evans v Granada Television: CA 1996
The court explained why evidence of particular acts of misconduct on the part of the Plaintiff tending to show his character and disposition should be excluded, saying ‘Both principle and authority seems equally against its admission. It would give rise to interminable issues which would have but a very remote bearing on the question in … Continue reading Scott v Sampson: QBD 1882
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
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
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
In an action for a libel, it is no plea, that the defendant had the libellous statement from another, and upon publication disclosed the author’s name. Judges: Best CJ Citations: [1829] 5 Bing 392, [1829] EngR 350, (1829) 5 Bing 392, (1829) 130 ER 1112 Links: Commonlii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – … Continue reading De Crespigny v Wellesley: 9 Feb 1829
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
The defendant published serious defamatory allegations against several plaintiff police officers. The defendant newspaper appealed against an award of andpound;250,000 exemplary damages for their defamation of the respondent police officers. Held: Damages for defamation might be increased where a newspaper advertised the story complained of. Nevertheless, a retrial was ordered. The jury should be asked … Continue reading Riches v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 20 Feb 1985
Judges: Eady J Citations: [2006] EWHC 637 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 3(5) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation, Damages Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.240117
Brooke LJ attempted to draw a distinction between simple cases. Judges: Ward LJ, Waller LJ, Brooke LJ Citations: [1999] EWCA Civ 3017, [2000] 1 WLR 2150 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Mahon v Rahn QBD 19-Jun-1996 Directors of a London firm of stockbrokers brought libel proceedings against two Swiss bankers. … Continue reading Mahon v Rahn and others (No 2): CA 8 Nov 1999
(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
The claimant, having not accepted an offer to make amends, wanted to proceed to a jury trial. To be permitted to do so, he had to seek to establish that the defendants ‘knew or had reason to believe that the statement complained of . . was both false and defamatory of [him]’ Held: The appeal … Continue reading Milne v Express Newspapers: CA 28 May 2004
The claimant in a defamation case appealed a decision to strike out his claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process, being intended to act as an harassment of the defendant, or to cause commercial embarrassment or undue cost. Held: Applying Broxton, the case was properly struck out. The test of abuse … Continue reading Wallis v Valentine and Others: CA 18 Jul 2002
Where a court regards a jury award in a defamation case as excessive, a ‘proper’ award can be substituted for it is not whatever sum court thinks appropriate, wholly uninfluenced by jury’s view, but the highest award which a jury could reasonably have thought necessary. ‘In a great many cases proof of a cold-blooded cost-benefit … Continue reading Kiam v MGN Ltd: CA 28 Jan 2002
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’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs and the letter was disclosed to them. After their acquittal they brought a claim for libel based on … Continue reading Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2): CA 8 Jun 2000
The claimant had previously issued a claim against the defendant solicitors through his company. He now sought to pursue a claim in his own name. It was resisted as an abuse of process, and on the basis that no personal duty of care was owed to the claimant. The defendants appealed orders against them. They … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co (a Firm): CA 12 Nov 1998
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
The taxpayer sought to set off against tax some pounds 200,000 spent defending professional disciplinary proceedings. The House was asked whether this was ‘money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade.’ Held: Where legal costs had been incurred in the defence of professional misconduct proceedings in order to protect … Continue reading McKnight (Inspector of Taxes) v Sheppard: HL 18 Jun 1999
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
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
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
The court considered an application by a third party to proceedings to prevent a statement being read out in open court in defamation proceedings. Justification had originally been pleaded by both defendants but, as part of a settlement with the second defendant the Spectator accepted that the libel could not be justified and withdrew that … Continue reading Barnet v Crozier: CA 1987
The defendant wrote a circular letter in Zurich libelling the plaintiff, who was chairman of a company in England, but who personally lived in Ontario, Canada. That circular letter was addressed to the deputy manager and managing director of the company in England. Held: A tort occurrs in the place where the last ingredient necessary … Continue reading Bata v Bata: CA 1948
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
(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 to damages for serious personal injuryWhen considering the likelihood of repetition of a libel once published, the court spoke of ‘the grapevine … Continue reading Crampton v Nugawela: 23 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
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
The claimants sought damages alleging torture by the respondent whilst held in custody in Saudi Arabia. Held: Although the state enjoyed freedom from action, where the acts were ones of torture, and action could proceed against state officials involved personally. The court had been correct to reject the claim against the state. Despite other developments, … Continue reading Jones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya As Saudiya Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Another: CA 28 Oct 2004
Qualified privilege reporting statutory proceedings stays despite doubts on findings. Jonathan Sumption QC said: ‘Historically, qualified privilege meant a state of affairs which negatived legal malice and meant that the plaintiff had to prove malice in fact. The classic form of qualified privilege, which depends on a social or moral duty to communicate information and … Continue reading Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc: QBD 28 Oct 1994
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
Copyright Claim: Was it Copied, and How Much? The claimant sought to enforce its copyright in artwork for a fabric design Ixia, saying the defendant’s design Marguerite infringed that copyright. Two issues faced the House. Just what had been copied and if any, then did this amount amount to the whole or a substantial part … Continue reading Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (Trading As Washington DC): HL 28 Nov 2000
Judges: Hirst, Judge LJJ Citations: [1996] EWCA Civ 1218 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.602628
Directors of a London firm of stockbrokers brought libel proceedings against two Swiss bankers. Held: The absolute immunity which is given to both witnesses and potential witnesses extends to all those taking part in a criminal investigation which is being conducted looking forward to a prosecution. The general principle was that the use of documents … Continue reading Mahon v Rahn: QBD 19 Jun 1996
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
The claimants, Coomber, claimed in conspiracy, and the defendants claimed in defamation. Various applications were made. The claimants had promoted a development project, but their bankers went into administration. The bank being unable to promise further funds, required repayment of the sums already advanced, and in due course sold the property. The claimants alleged a … Continue reading Ernst and Young Llp and Others v Coomber and Another: QBD 8 Nov 2010
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, saying that the complainant’s evidence had wrongfully been allowed to be given over a remote video link. Provisions to allow such means of giving evidence had been intended to be phased in only as training allowed. No notice had been given to apply to the court which had … Continue reading R, Regina v: CACD 4 Apr 2008
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 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
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
No collateral attack on Jury findigs. An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many years after conviction … Continue reading Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police: HL 19 Nov 1981
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and claimed in breach of confidence. Held: ‘The law [of confidence] now affords protection … Continue reading Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 24 Jul 2008
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the recovery of possession interfered with their right respect for their family … Continue reading Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others: HL 8 Mar 2006
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought to co-operate in the resettlement of the … Continue reading Regina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB: CA 18 Mar 1998
The claimant hypnotherapist said that the defendant had through its newspaper defamed him by accusing him of claiming a bogus PhD. The Hon Mr Justice Eady [2006] EWHC 1996 (QB) Bailii England and Wales Cited by: See Also – McKenna v MGN Ltd QBD 16-Jul-2007 Eady J considered the consequences in costs of a claimant’s … Continue reading McKenna v MGN Ltd: QBD 28 Jul 2006
The defendant wrote to their customers saying ‘Henty and Sons hereby give notice that they will not receive in payment cheques drawn on any of the branches of the Capital and Counties Bank.’ The contents of the circular became known and there was a run on the bank. The bank claimed they had been defamed. … Continue reading The Capital and Counties Bank Limited v George Henty and Sons: HL 1882
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 newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same newspaper was taken into account. Held: The request for summary judgment succeeded. Charleston did not … Continue reading Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd: QBD 28 Apr 2010
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 newspaper applied to challenge the protection of the identity of the defendant subject to a control order under the 2005 Act. It said that there was no basis for the making of the order without first considering the Human Rights need for open justice. Held: The general purpose of the control order related to … Continue reading Times Newspapers Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department and AY: Admn 17 Oct 2008
The claimant internet provider claimed damages against the defendant who it said had written to its clients making false assertions about the claimant. An earlier defamation claim had been struck out, but the claimant now alleged interference with its business by unlawful means. Held: While the allegations were novel the amendments were allowed. Eady J … Continue reading Tiscali UK Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc: QBD 16 Dec 2008
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
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later trial of others. The plaintiff sought damages in defamation. Held: The documents which … Continue reading Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others: HL 29 Oct 1998
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act. Held: The decision was set aside for breaching the rule against impugning an action of Parliament. The minister had made a statement as to the … Continue reading Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another: Admn 11 Apr 2008
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
The claimant alleged defamation. The defendant offered to make amends but wished to maintain his denial that the statement itself was defamatory. Held: An offer of amends required acceptance that the statement had been defamatory. A statement could not be defamatory only in the abstract. Tugendhat J [2008] EWHC 2552 (QB), Times 10-Dec-2008 Bailii Defamation … Continue reading Club La Costa (UK) Plc v Gebhard and others: QBD 24 Oct 2008
Duress as Defence not closely Defined The defendant had been a member of MI5. He had signed the Official Secrets Act, but then disclosed various matters, including material obtained by interceptions under the Interception of Communications Act. He claimed that his disclosures were made in the public interest. He appealed against a judgment that the … Continue reading Regina v Shayler: CACD 28 Sep 2001
The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims. Held: The master had made assessments on a summary hearing of facts which were in dispute. The … Continue reading Mardas v New York Times Company and Another: QBD 17 Dec 2008
Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having found some evidence to suggest that … Continue reading In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening): HL 11 Jun 2008
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
Police officers brought an action in negligence against a Chief Constable on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against them had been negligently conducted. They claimed that the investigating officers had negligently failed to conduct the . .
The court considered the status of an untaxed solicitor’s bill of costs against a client for whom he had acted in defamation proceedings. Sir Richard Scott V-C said: ‘It is a fact that [the client] never entered into any contract to pay the sums as . .
Adjourned application for leave to appeal against order for security for costs of appeal. . .
The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying . .
A solicitor had failed to register an option as a land charge over property. The court was asked what steps should have been taken by a solicitor in the conduct of a claim: ‘Mr Harman [leading counsel for the plaintiff] sought to rely upon the fact . .
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
References: [1829] 5 Bing 392, [1829] EngR 350, (1829) 5 Bing 392, (1829) 130 ER 1112 Links: Commonlii Coram: Best CJ In an action for a libel, it is no plea, that the defendant had the libellous statement from another, and upon publication disclosed the author’s name. This case is cited by: Cited – Stern … Continue reading De Crespigny v Wellesley; 9 Feb 1829
References: [1846] EngR 593, (1846) 8 QB 841, (1846) 115 ER 1091 Links: Commonlii Where a declaration in slander sets out words alleged to have been uttered, some in one discourse, and the remainder in a second discourse, and there are in form but two counts, each containing only the words alleged to have been … Continue reading Mary Griffiths v Lewis; 27 Apr 1846
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
The court asked whether the summary judgment procedure under sections 8 to 10 of the 1996 Act, with its ceiling of andpound;10,000, was appropriate in a case in which a jury after a trial might award andpound;30,000. He decided that it was appropriate. A claimant in defamation has the same duty as any other victim … Continue reading Mawdsley v Guardian Newspapers Ltd: QBD 2002
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
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
The test to be applied to the question of summary disposal under s.8 of the 1996 Act is the same as that under CPR Part 24. Judges: Early J Citations: [2000] EMLR 681 Statutes: Defamation Act 1996 8, Civil Procedure Rules 24 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Downtex v Flatley CA 2-Oct-2003 … Continue reading James Gilbert Ltd v MGN Ltd: 2000
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
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
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
(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
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