The court considered issues about the application of the rules on pleading and proof of publication in defamation, the serious harm requirement in s 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, and the abuse of process doctrine in Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones Inc
Held: The Defendant had, on the evidence, demonstrated that no serious harm to reputation had been caused by the publication of a limited circulation email. The Judge was satisfied that: ‘(1) there was no evidence of the Claimant’s reputation having been harmed in the eyes of the publishees; on the contrary
(2) of those who had read the allegations, the evidence demonstrated that none of the publishees believed them.’
Warby J
[2016] EWHC 2533 (QB)
Bailii
Defamation Act 2013
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Cited by:
Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570513