The claimant sought damages from the defendant for a magazine article claiming that he was involved in organised crime in Russia. The defendants appealed against the striking out of elements of the defence suggesting lesser meanings. Was meaning a matter for the judge? Secondly, had the new Human Rights law, by expanding the need to allow freedom of expression, developed the law of justification in defamation.
Held: To require a defendant publisher to justify the sting of an allegation was not an unreasonable interference in his freedom of expression. Issues of exaggeration and error could be looked at separately through the defences of fair comment, and qualified privilege. The question of whether a meaning was to be allowed is primarily for the jury, but a judge should allow for a generous assessment of the range of legitimate meanings. An appeal court should be careful before interfering with such an assessment, and would not do so in this case.
True facts that go only half way to meet the sting of a libel may mitigate damage.
Sedley LJ said: ‘The real question . . is how the courts ought to go about ascertaining the range of legitimate meanings . . the impression is not of what the words mean but of what a jury could sensibly think they meant. Such an exercise is an exercise in generosity, not in parsimony.’
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Arden
[2001] EWCA Civ 1251, [2001] EMLR 45
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights Art 10
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .
Appeal from – Berezovsky and Another v Forbes Inc and Another QBD 19-Jan-1998
A defamation action which between two parties both resident in foreign jurisdictions but based upon a publication with a circulation of 2000 in Britain was to be stayed. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Douglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited, Hola SA, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Limited, Ramey CA 12-Feb-2003
The claimants claimed infringement of the privacy of their wedding celebrations. They requested permission for service out of the jurisdiction to join Mr Ramey as defendant, saying he had been the one who had taken some of the photographs in New . .
See Also – Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .
Cited – Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Feb-2006
The defendant sought to defend the claim for defamation by claiming fair comment. The claimant said that the relevant facts were not known to the defendant at the time of the publication.
Held: To claim facts in aid of a defence of fair . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Burstein CA 22-Jun-2007
The newspaper appealed an award of damages for defamation after its theatre critic’s review of an opera written by the claimant. The author said the article made him appear to sympathise with terrorism.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Keene LJ . .
Cited – Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 30-Apr-2008
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 . .
Cited – Budu v The British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Mar-2010
budu_bbcQBD2010
The defendant sought to strike out the claimant’s action in defamation. It had reported that the police had withdrawn an employment offer to claimant after doubting his immigration status.
Held: The claims should be struck out. The articles . .
Cited – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Mar-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation, saying that the defendant newspaper (Daily Mail) had implied abuse of his friendship with a Police Commissioner to obtain contracts. The defendant denied any meaning defamatory of the claimant.
Held: . .
Cited – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 16-Jun-2010
The claimant said that a review of her book was defamatory and a malicious falsehood. The defendant now sought summary judgment or a ruling as to the meaning of the words complained of.
Held: The application for summary judgment succeeded. The . .
Cited – Lewis v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Others (Rev 1) QBD 31-Mar-2011
lewis_cpmQBD11
The defendant sought a ruling on the meaning of the words but using section 69(4) of the 1981 Act. The claimant solicitor was acting in complaints as to the unlawful interception of celebrity voicemails by agents of the press. There had been debate . .
Cited – Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 10-Feb-2012
rothschild_anQBD2012
The claimant said that an article published by the defendant was defamatory. He said that the article implied that in his business associations he had put others at risk to their reputations.
Held: The action failed. The words were indeed . .
Cited – Elliott v Rufus CA 20-Feb-2015
The parties were former footballers and business partners they fell out and the defendant was said to have sent and extremely offensive text message. After a copy was published, the defendant published a press release which the claimant now said was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Human Rights
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.147645