Basham v Gregory and Little Brown and Co: CA 2 Jul 1998

The defendant sought a retrial of his action for defamation.
Held: The judge’s directions on meaning as to the respective contentions was correct, and also the allocation of the burden of proof. Whilst the court had reservations about the direction with regard to the plea of justification, the court was not to be required to give detailed guidance where the facts were agreed, but where Section 5 of the 1952 Act is relied upon a careful explanation of its meaning and effect is required. Where a misdirection is found, the party supporting the verdict must, by evidence, show that it did not affect the result, and then it must be shown that the effect was substantial. The misdirection if any in this case did not support such a conclusion, and the appeal was dismissed.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Otton, Sir Brian Neill
[1998] EWCA Civ 1137
Defamation Act 1952 5
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEdwards v Bell 1824
The justification of the sting of a libel is sufficient even if it does not extend to every epithet or detail in the words complained of.
Held: ‘As much must be justified as meets the sting of the charge, and if anything be contained in the . .
CitedNeville v Fine Art HL 1897
Lord Halsbury said: ‘Where you are complaining of a non-direction of the Judge, or that he did not leave a question to the jury, if you had the opportunity of asking him to do it and you abstain from asking for it, no Court would ever have granted . .
CitedMoore v News of the World CA 1972
An article was published which the plaintiff said left readers with the false apprehension that she had written it. She claimed under the statutory tort of false attribution.
Held: The judge was correct to direct the jury to make up their . .
CitedPolly Peck PLC v Trelford CA 1986
The plaintiffs complained of the whole of one article and parts of two other articles published about them in The Observer. The defamatory sting was that Mr Asil Nadir (the fourth plaintiff) had deceived or negligently misled shareholders, . .
CitedPamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd (2) CA 1988
In considering what evidence can be used in mitigation of damages in defamation, it is necessary to draw a distinction between evidence which is put forward to show that the plaintiff is a man of bad reputation and evidence which is already before . .
CitedAnthony v Halstead 1877
Where there has been a misdirection in a civil jury trial, it is for the party asserting that the judgment should stand to demonstrate supported by the evidence that any error did not affect the decision reached. . .

Cited by:
CitedGodfrey 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 include allegations that the plaintiff had courted litigation by his action.
Held: A judge assessing damages should be able see the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.144616