The defendant had published a book with minutes of a meeting of the council recording that the plaintiff’s name had been removed from the medical register for infamous professional conduct. This followed an inquiry at which the plaintiff had been represented by counsel.
Held: The publication was privileged. The court had express regard to the nature of the tribunal, the character of the report, the interests of the public in the proceedings of the council and the duty of the council towards the public.
References: (1889) 23 QBD 400
Judges: Lopes LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Cox v Feeney 1863
In an action for libel, consisting of a publication in a newspaper of a report of an inspector of charities under the Charitable Trusts Act, containing a letter, written some years before, reflecting on the plaintiff in hs management of a college: . .
((1863) 4 F and F 13, [1863] EngR 18, , (1863) 4 F and F 13, (1863) 176 ER 445)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – 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 . .
(Times 29-Oct-99, Gazette 25-Nov-99, Gazette 17-Nov-99, , , [2001] 2 AC 127, [1999] UKHL 45, [1999] 4 All ER 609, [1999] 3 WLR 1010, [2000] EMLR 1, [2000] HRLR 134, 7 BHRC 289) - Cited – Webb v Times Publishing Co Ltd 1960
The Times newspaper published a report of the criminal trial in Switzerland of a British subject. When sued in defamation they sought to rely upon the defence of fair reporting of judicial proceedings.
Held: A blanket protection for reporting . .
([1960] 2 QB 535) - Cited – Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl HL 11-Oct-2006
The House was asked as to the capacity of a limited company to sue for damage to its reputation, where it had no trading activity within the jurisdiction, and as to the extent of the Reynolds defence. The defendants/appellants had published an . .
(, [2006] UKHL 44, Times 12-Oct-06, [2006] 3 WLR 642, [2007] AC 359, [2007] Bus LR 291, [2007] EMLR 2, [2007] EMLR 14, [2006] 4 All ER 1279, 21 BHRC 471, [2006] HRLR 41)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194509