Where a defendant in a defamation action sought to reduce the damages payable by arguing that the claimant had a reduced or damaged reputation, he could include evidence about particular facts only where these were directly connected to the background circumstances which led to the offending publication. General evidence was admissible, but particular evidence of facts about the claimant’s character and behaviour was only relevant to the extent that it affected the issue of the damages occasioned by the publication at issue.
May LJ said: ‘Permitting the defendants to rely on the directly relevant background contents in the way in which I have described would not offend anything said in Scott v Samsung 8 QBD 491 or Speidel v Plato Films Limited [1961] AC 1090. The material to which I have referred as directly relevant background context was, as I have indicated, recognised in Speidel v Plato Films Limited as being admissible as the circumstances in which the publication came to be made. In the present case, those circumstances are not sensibly limited to the concert in memory of John Smith and the fact that the claimant’s music was played at it. For practical purposes, every publication has a contextual background, even if the publication is substantially untrue. In addition, the evidence which Scott v Samsung excludes is particular evidence of general reputation, character or disposition which is not directly connected with the subject matter of the defamatory publication. It does not exclude evidence of directly relevant background context. To the extent that evidence of this kind may also be characterised as evidence of the claimant’s reputation, it is admissible because it is directly relevant to the damage which he claims has been caused by the defamatory publication.’
Judges:
May LJ
Citations:
Times 31-Jan-2001, Gazette 22-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 338, [2001] 1 WLR 579, [2001] EMLR 14
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another CA 16-May-2006
Dispute as to quantification of damages for libel. An offer of amends had been made, but the parties could not agree the sum payable. . .
Cited – Kaschke v Gray and Another QBD 23-Jul-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendants had published a web page which falsely associated her with a terrorist gang in the 1970s. The defendants now sought a strike out of her claim as an abuse saying that a similar . .
Explained – Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another CA 16-May-2006
Application to determine compensation for admitted defamation.
Keene LJ considered both Pamplin and Burstein as bases for reliance upon other ‘misconduct’ of a claimant to reduce damages: ‘it needs to be borne in mind that the principle of . .
Cited – Hunt v Evening Standard Ltd QBD 18-Feb-2011
The defamation claimant sought that certain paragraphs of the defence should be struck out.
Held: Several paragraphs of the defence were struck out, and others left. . .
Cited – Robins v Kordowski and Another QBD 22-Jul-2011
The claimant solicitor said he had been defamed on the first defendant’s website (‘Solicitors from Hell’) by the second defendant. The first defendant now applied to set aside judgment entered by default. The claimant additionally sought summary . .
Main Judgment – Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd SCCO 28-Nov-2002
. .
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 . .
Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Damages
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.147371