The defendant published two articles with comment adverse to W. The plaintiff complained that this associated him and his company with violent organised crime. The defence to the defamation action said the words complained of were fair comment, and derived from the trial of the plaintiff for theft.
Held: To sustain the defence of fair comment by showing that the allegations were based upon unproven statements made in a previously privileged occasion, a defendant publisher had to meet an additional requirement that his report was a fair and accurate of the proceedings. The paragraphs complained of were struck out.
Parker LJ commented on the absurdity of the ‘tangled web of the law of defamation’.
Bingham LJ held that fairness to the subject of a defamatory comment based on a privileged statement required that the commentator should at least base his comment on a fair and accurate account of the occasion on which the statement was made, summarising the law of fair comment: ‘The civil law of libel is primarily concerned to provide redress for those who are the subject of false and defamatory factual publications. Thus in the simplest case A will be entitled to relief against B if B publishes a defamatory factual statement concerning A which B cannot show to be true. The law is not primarily concerned to provide redress for those who are the subject of disparaging expressions of opinion, and freedom of opinion is (subject to necessary restrictions) a basic democratic right. It is, however, plain that certain statements which might on their face appear to be expressions of opinion (as where, for example, a person is described as untrustworthy, unprincipled, lascivious or cruel) contain within themselves defamatory suggestions of a factual nature. Thus the law has developed the rule already mentioned that comment may only be defended as fair if it is comment on facts (meaning true facts) stated or sufficiently indicated. Failing that, the comment itself must be justified.’
Judges:
Parker LJ, Bingham LJ
Citations:
[1991] 2 QB 33, [1991] 2 WLR 772
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2004
The claimant MP alleged defamation in articles by the defendant newspaper. They claimed to have found papers in Iraqi government offices after the invasion of Iraq which implicated the claimant. The claimant said the allegations were grossly . .
Cited – Spiller and Another v Joseph and Others SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants had published remarks on its website about the reliability of the claimant. When sued in defamation, they pleaded fair comment, but that was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The defendants’ appeal succeeded, and the fair . .
Cited – Spiller and Another v Joseph and Others SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants had published remarks on its website about the reliability of the claimant. When sued in defamation, they pleaded fair comment, but that was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The defendants’ appeal succeeded, and the fair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.220017
