Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2945 (QB), [2004] 2 All ER 92

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First Instance – Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl HL 11-Oct-2006
The House was asked as to the capacity of a limited company to sue for damage to its reputation, where it had no trading activity within the jurisdiction, and as to the extent of the Reynolds defence. The defendants/appellants had published an . .
At First Instance – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 1) CA 26-Nov-2003
The court considered the levels of meaning in an article falsely connecting the claimant with terrorist activity: ‘Once it is recognised that the article may be asserting no more than that in one way or another the respondents may unwittingly have . .
Appeal from – Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.245336

The plaintiff had been the Supreme Commander of the Axis Land Forces in Central Europe. He brought an action claiming that he had been defamed in a film showing him privy to the murders of King Alexander of Yugoslavia and M. Barthou in 1934, and as having betrayed Field-Marshal Rommel in 1944. The trial had not yet occurred. The defendants sought to rely on the fact that the plaintiff chose to sue on certain parts of the film, and not on others which were also defamatory of the plaintiff, as a ground for mitigating damages.
Held: This was vigorously rejected: ‘[The defendants] plead that the respondent has been depicted in the film as having been ‘guilty of the conduct hereinafter set out the truth of which the plaintiff . . does not deny’. It surprises me that it should be considered a proper matter for pleading that a plaintiff has not thought fit to include in his action every libellous statement made about him by a defendant. It is, in my opinion, wholly improper.’ and ‘If it is said that other parts of the entire film constitute ‘circumstances in which the alleged libel was published’ (in themselves a recognised head of mitigation), I think that is a highly artificial meaning to attribute to the phrase. The real purport of this portion of paragraph 5 of the defence seems to be to make the point that the plaintiff must be taken to have admitted the truth of such accompanying derogatory statements as he is not challenged in his libel claim. That is not a matter for pleading. If it amounts to anything at all, it is a matter for comment. As a proposition of law designed to set up some sort of estoppel, I think that it has no foundation.’

Judges:

Lord Radcliffe, Viscount Simonds

Citations:

[1961] AC 1090, [1961] All ER 876

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.220016

‘when you are dealing with some legal decisions which all rest on a certain principle, you may extend the area of those decisions to meet cases which fall within the same principles; but where we are dealing with such an artificial law as this law of slander, which rests on the most artificial distinctions, all you can do is, I think, to say that if the action is to be extended to a class of cases in which it has not hitherto been held to lie, it is the Legislature that must make the extension and not the Court”.

Judges:

Lord Herschell

Citations:

[1892] 1 QB 797

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.220014

It was arguable that a defendant in defamation proceedings could pray in aid in his claim for qualified privilege circumstances not known to him at the time of the publication: ‘there was a real, if problematic, prospect of success.’
May LJ said: ‘the existence or otherwise of qualified privilege is to be judged in all the circumstances at the time of the publication. It is not necessary or relevant to determine whether the publication was true or not. None of Lord Nicholls’s 10 considerations require such a determination and some of them (for example number 8) positively suggest otherwise. Nor is it necessary or relevant to speculate (for the purposes, for instance, of considerations 3, 4 or 7) what further information the publisher might have received if he had made more extensive inquiries. The question is rather whether, in all the circumstances, the public was entitled to know the particular information without the publisher making further such inquiries . . the defendant’s state of mind is to be determined at the time of publication. The subsequently determined truth or falsity of the publication is not material. Where, as in the present case, the contention is that [the journalist] was reckless and that she did not consider or care whether her publication was true or not, this is to be inferred (or not) ‘from what [she] did or said or knew.’ A failure to make further or proper inquiries is capable of being an ingredient from which recklessness may be inferred. What the response to those inquiries might have been is not capable of being such an ingredient.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[2001] 1 WLR 2571

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – GKR Karate (UK) Limited v Porch, Yorkshire Post Newspaper, Holmes QBD 17-Jan-2000
The claimant sought damages alleging defamation. The judge ordered certain elements of the case to be heard first, and others, if necessary later. Although the case had been begun under the old rules, the new civil procedure regime gave the judge . .

Cited by:

Cited – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) CA 12-Mar-2001
The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication.
Held: It is necessary for the defendants to . .
Cited – Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .
Cited – Quinton v Peirce and Another QBD 30-Apr-2009
One election candidate said that another had defamed him in an election leaflet. Additional claims were made in injurious falsehood and under the Data Protection Act.
Held: The claim in defamation failed. There were no special privileges in . .
Cited – Economou v De Freitas QBD 27-Jul-2016
Failed action for defamation on rape allegations
The claimant had been accused by the defendant’s daughter of rape. He was never charged but sought to prosecute her alleging intent to pervert the course of justice. She later killed herself. The defendant sought to have the inquest extended to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.198164

Newspaper – privilege against disclosure of source

Citations:

[1937] 3 All ER 133, [1937] 2 KB 690

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.193371

Dr Trapp had been dismissed from his post by the Aberdeenshire Education Committee of which Mr Mackie was chairman. Dr Trapp petitioned the Secretary of State for an inquiry into the reasons for his dismissal. An inquiry was set up, and in the course of that inquiry Mr Mackie gave evidence. On the basis of that evidence Dr Trapp sued Mr Mackie for damages for loss, injury and damage which he claimed to have suffered as a result of ‘maliciously false evidence’.
Held: ‘That absolute privilege attaches to words spoken or written in the course of giving evidence in proceedings in a court of justice is a rule of law, based on public policy, that has been established since earliest times. That the like privilege extends to evidence given before tribunals which, although not courts of justice, nevertheless act in a manner similar to that in which courts of justice act, was established . . by the decision in . . Dawkins.’ The tribunals attracting absolute privilege were described in O’Connor v. Waldron and confirmed in Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd. v. Parkinson. ‘No single touchstone emerges from the cases; but this is not surprising for the rule of law is one which involves the balancing of conflicting public policies, one general: that the law should provide a remedy to the citizen whose good name and reputation is traduced by malicious falsehoods uttered by another; the other particular: that witnesses before tribunals recognised by law should give their testimony free from fear of being harassed by an action on an allegation whether true or false that they acted from malice . . So, to decide whether a tribunal acts in a manner similar to courts of justice and thus is of such a kind as will attract absolute, as distinct from qualified, privilege for witnesses when they give testimony before it, one must consider first, under what authority the tribunal acts, secondly the nature of the question into which it is its duty to inquire; thirdly the procedure adopted by it in carrying out the inquiry; and fourthly the legal consequences of the conclusion reached by the tribunal as a result of the inquiry.’ and ‘In deciding whether a particular tribunal is of such a kind as to attract absolute privilege for witnesses when they give testimony before it, your Lordships are engaged in the task of balancing against one another public interests which conflict. In such a task legal technicalities have at most a minor part to play.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock

Citations:

[1979] 1 WLR 377, [1979] 1 All ER 489

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dawkins v Lord Rokeby 1873
dawkins_rokeby1873
Police officers (among others) are immune from any action that may be brought against them on the ground that things said or done by them in the ordinary course of the proceedings were said or done falsely and maliciously and without reasonable and . .
Cited – Dawkins v Lord Rokeby HL 1875
The court unanimously confirmed the judgment of the lower court and expressly adopted the reasoning given. Witnesses before tribunals recognised by law should be able to ‘give their testimony free from any fear of being harassed by an action on an . .
Cited – O’Connor v Waldron HL 1935
The kind of tribunal to which absolute privilege attaches is one which ‘has similar attributes to a court of justice or acts in a manner similar to that in which such courts act.’ It is a question ‘not capable of very precise limitation’. . .
Cited – Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd v Parkinson CA 1892
The court described the characteristics of a tribunal to which absolute privilege attaches. Having spoken of ‘an authorised inquiry which, though not before a court of justice, is before a tribunal which has similar attributes’ and similar . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gray v Avadis QBD 30-Jul-2003
The claimant had made complaints against the defendant solicitor to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. In answer the defendant made assertions about the claimant’s mental health, and she now sought to bring action iin defamation on those . .
Cited – Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 20-Jul-2004
The female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board’s treatment of her . .
Cited – Amwell View School v Dogherty EAT 15-Sep-2006
amwell_dogherty
The claimant had secretly recorded the disciplinary hearings and also the deliberations of the disciplinary panel after their retirement. The tribunal had at a case management hearing admitted the recordings as evidence, and the defendant appealed, . .
Cited – Lake v British Transport Police CA 5-May-2007
The claimant challenged dismissal of his claim of having suffered an unfair detriment having made a disclosure with regard to his employers. The employers had said that as a constable, his employment was outside the scope of the Act, and the . .
Cited – White v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD 1-Apr-2011
The claimant doctor sued in defamation for letters written by the defendants to the Fitness to Practice Directorate. She now sought to appeal against a finding that she could not rely upon one letter which had come to her attention through . .
Cited – Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others QBD 11-Apr-2013
The claimant sought an order to restrain anticipated defamatory comments and evidence to be given to an employment tribunal.
Held: It could not be said as the claimant asserted that dfeences were bound to fail, and no determination should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185758

The kind of tribunal to which absolute privilege attaches is one which ‘has similar attributes to a court of justice or acts in a manner similar to that in which such courts act.’ It is a question ‘not capable of very precise limitation’.

Judges:

Atkins L

Citations:

[1935] AC 76

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Trapp v Mackie HL 1979
Dr Trapp had been dismissed from his post by the Aberdeenshire Education Committee of which Mr Mackie was chairman. Dr Trapp petitioned the Secretary of State for an inquiry into the reasons for his dismissal. An inquiry was set up, and in the . .
Cited – Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 20-Jul-2004
The female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board’s treatment of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185760

Having failed to have the defence of justification struck out in his action for defamation, the plaintiff amended his imputations to include one asserting that ‘his character and reputation were such that he was likely to have misappropriated funds of companies with which he was connected’. The defendant filed an amended defence pleading justification and relied in its particulars on events which had taken place after the date of publication of the matter complained of. The plaintiff sought to strike out the particulars of post-publication facts.
Held: He was unsuccessful.
Lord Cozens-Hardy MR said: ‘In a general allegation by way of justification of general character and general tendency, which are the only words I can think of at the moment as the meaning of the word ‘likely’, I do not see how you can exclude events which happen, I will not say years later, but within a reasonable time from the date of the publications. I instance a case which seems to me to be rather analogous; an allegation that the plaintiff was addicted to drink and would get drunk if he could. Could you exclude evidence that the day after publication of that libel he had been found suffering from delirium tremens? It seems to me you could not in answer to a general allegation of what the man was likely to have done if he could.’

Judges:

Lord Cozens-Hardy MR, Pickfo

Citations:

[1915] 3 KB 336

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Maisel v Financial Times Ltd (1) HL 1915
The plaintiff company director complained of defamation in the report of his arrest on a charge of fraud. In his Statement of Claim, the plaintiff relied upon an imputation that he was an unfit person to be the director of any company. The newspaper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.451205

The plaintiff company director complained of defamation in the report of his arrest on a charge of fraud. In his Statement of Claim, the plaintiff relied upon an imputation that he was an unfit person to be the director of any company. The newspaper sought to justify the imputation by relying on dishonest acts other than those referred to in the article. The plaintiff moved to strike out those particulars of the justification defence arguing that the defendant could not justify the defamation by matters not referred to in the article.
Held: The defendant was entitled to justify that imputation by relying upon a number of other dishonest acts, quite independent of that for which he was said in the matter complained of to have been arrested. It is for the defendant to choose how he wishes to justify his imputation.

Citations:

(1915) 84 LJKB 2145, (1915) 31 TLR 192, (1915) 112 LT 953

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Maisel v Financial Times Ltd (2) CA 2-Jan-1915
Having failed to have the defence of justification struck out in his action for defamation, the plaintiff amended his imputations to include one asserting that ‘his character and reputation were such that he was likely to have misappropriated funds . .
Cited – Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 10-Feb-2012
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 – Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 10-Feb-2012
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.451204

The plaintiff appealed against a finding of the defendant disciplinary body. Devlin J said: ‘There is something more important than the standing of a profession about which the council is naturally and properly concerned. There is the right of every man to earn his living in whatever way he chooses unless by the law or by his own voluntary submission his way is taken from him.’ and ‘It is not of itself disgraceful to disagree with a majority view and to act accordingly. It is only if a man has bound himself in honour to accept that view and to act according to the code that a deliberate breach of the code for his own profit can be called disgraceful.’

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1957] 2 QB 550

Cited by:

Cited – Modi and Another v Clarke CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimants, organisers of the Indian Premier cricket League, met with organisations in England seeking to establish a similar league in the Northern Hemisphere. A copy of a note came to the defendant, chairman of the England and Wales Cricket . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.442511

In an action for libel, it appeared that the defendant, with whom the plaintiff had lived as servant, in answer to inquiries respecting her character, wrote a letter imputing misconduct to her whilst in that service, and after she left it; and the defendant also made similar parol statements to two persons that had recommended the plaintiff to her: Held, that neither the letter itself nor the parol statements proved malice, and that, consequently the letter was a privileged communication, and the plaintiff not entitled to recover.

Citations:

[1829] EngR 459, (1829) 9 B and C 403, (1829) 109 ER 150

Links:

Commonlii

Defamation

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.322327

Bayley J said: ‘a man cannot by law justify the repetition of slander by merely naming the person who first uttered it; he must also shew that he repeated it on a justifiable occasion, and believed it to be true.’
Littledale J said: ‘The law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he does not or ought not to possess.’ and
Parke B said: ‘There may be a great difference in the degree of injury committed, arising from the character or condition of the party who utters the slander, or the number of persons in whose presence it is uttered.’

Judges:

Bayley J, Littledale J, Parke B

Citations:

[1829] EngR 131, (1829) 10 B and C 263, (1829) 109 ER 448

Links:

Commonlii

Defamation

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.321999

In an action for libel, the Judge is not bound to state to the jury, as matter of law, whether the publication complained of be a libel or not ; but the proper course is for him to define what is a libel in point of law, and to leave it to the jury to say whether the publication in question falls within that definition; and, as incidental to that, whether it is calculated to injure the character of the plaintiff. A publication may be a libel on a private person, which would not be any libel on a person in a public capacity; but any imputation of unjust or corrupt motives is equally libellous in either case. It was for the judge to give a legal definition of the offence which he defined as being: ‘A publication, without justification or lawful excuse, which is calculated to injure the reputation of another, by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.’

Judges:

Parke B

Citations:

[1840] EngR 168, (1840) 6 M and W 105, (1840) 151 ER 340

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Apr-2010
The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .
Cited – Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England CA 1924
The court considered the duty of confidentiality owed by a banker to his client. Bankes LJ said: ‘At the present day I think it may be asserted with confidence that the duty is a legal one arising out of contract, and that the duty is not absolute . .
Cited – Berkoff v Burchill and and Times Newspapers Limited CA 31-Jul-1996
The plaintiff actor said that an article by the defendant labelling him ugly was defamatory. The defendant denied that the words were defamatory.
Held: It is for the jury to decide in what context the words complained of were used and whether . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.309594

If JH and MY be registered at the stamp office as ‘the sole proprietors’ of a newspaper, ‘that is to say, the said JH as legal owner as mortgagee, and MY as owner of the equity of redemption,’ this is sufficient to fix JH as a proprietor of the newspaper in an action for a libel contained in it. In an alleged libel, the writer suggested the propriety of the plaintiff ‘withdrawing into his own natural and sinister obscurity,’ the word ‘natural’ being printed in italics. Held, that the plaintiff could not ask a witness what he understood by the word ‘natural’ thus printed, but that the jury might look at the paper and form their opinion as to the meaning.

Citations:

[1850] EngR 681, (1850) 3 Car and K 10, (1850) 175 ER 441

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Duke of Brunswick v Harmer QBD 2-Nov-1849
On 19 September 1830 an article was published in the Weekly Dispatch. The limitation period for libel was six years. The article defamed the Duke of Brunswick. Seventeen years after its publication an agent of the Duke purchased a back number . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.298028

An article in a newspaper describing leaden figures ‘reported to have been found in the Thames,’ and sold as antiquities, as being of recent fabrication, and stigmatizing their sale as an attempt at deception and extortion, held not actionable ; the alleged libel being aimed not at any particular individual but of a class, and being privileged, in the absence of evidence of malice, as pertaining to fair description or criticism on a matter of public interest.
Willes J said: Assuming the article to be libellous, it is not a libel on the plaintiff ; it only reflects on a class of persons dealing in such objects ; and it is immaterial in this view whether they are genune or not. If a man wrote that all lawyers were thieves, no particular lawyer could sue him unless there is something to point to the particular individual, which there is not here. There is nothing to show that the article was inserted with any special reference to the plaintiff. It does not appear that the defendant knew of his existence.’

Judges:

Willes J

Citations:

[1860] EngR 56 (B), (1860) 1 F and F 347

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper Ltd HL 3-Apr-1944
The plaintiff complained that the defendant’s article was defamatory in implying that he was an agent of Hitler. He was representative in Great Britain of a political party of Russian emigres known as Mlado Russ or Young Russia. The total membership . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.284895

Words imputing to a certificated master mariner drunkenness whilst in command of a vessel at sea, are actionable without special damage.

Citations:

[1864] EngR 186, (1864) 2 H and C 960, (1864) 159 ER 397

Links:

Commonlii

Defamation

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.281900

The Board considered the findings the jury as to the meaning of the words complained of: ‘It is not disputed that, whilst it is for the court to determine whether the words used are capable of the meaning alleged in the innuendo, it is for the jury to determine whether that meaning was properly attached to them. It was therefore the province of the jury in the present case to determine whether the words used were written of the plaintiff, and whether they bore the defamatory sense alleged.
[The judge below] observed in the course of his judgment that he admitted that the Court would only be justified in reversing the finding of the jury ‘if their decision upon that point is such as no jury could give as reasonable men’. This is a correct statement of the law. Their Lordships have not, any more than the Court below had, to determine in the present case what is the conclusion at which they would have arrived, or what is the verdict they would have found. The only point to be determined is, whether the verdict found by the jury, for whose consideration it essentially was, was such as no jury could have found as reasonable men.’ and

‘The question therefore is whether in all these circumstances it can be said that a jury of reasonable men could not possibly find that the article, although it contains that which had much better not have been published, did not reflect upon the plaintiff’s character, or even upon his conduct in relation to the newspaper. The jury have so found, and their Lordships are of opinion that it would be exceeding the legitimate function of the court if the verdict was set aside and a new trial ordered, that the court would then in reality be taking upon itself the function which the law has committed to the jury, of looking at the alleged libelous matter as a whole, and determining whether it is published of and concerning the plaintiff, and whether it bears the innuendo which the plaintiff seeks to attach to it.’

Citations:

[1894] AC 284

Cited by:

Cited – Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another CA 18-Jan-2001
The claimant had been awarded andpound;85,000 damages in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused him of cheating at football. The newspaper sought to appeal saying that the verdict was perverse and the defence of qualified privilege . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.272786

The defendants published an article describing the plaintiff estate agent as ‘a notorious dodgy operator of London slum properties’. The article quoted statements by Lord Goddard CJ 8 years before describing the plaintiff’s estate agency as ‘a fraudulent business from beginning to end’. The defendants put forward a plea of justification stating that in the course of proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal where the plaintiff’s conviction had been quashed Lord Goddard CJ had made the observation above quoted, and also relying on judicial statements to a similar effect in two previous civil cases in which the plaintiff had been involved. The plaintiff sought a strike out of the defence.
Held: The request was refused. Willmer LJ cited Cadam’s case and said that it was impossible to say that the particulars of justification could be no answer to any conceivable meaning which the jury might find, and that it was therefore not possible to strike out the particulars which set out the effect of what was said in the various previous judicial proceedings. Danckwerts LJ agreed.

Judges:

Willmer LJ, Danckwerts LJ

Citations:

[1961] 1 WLR 967, [1961] 2 All ER 758

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cadam v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd CA 1959
The defendants had published an article stating simply and solely that a writ had been issued against the four plaintiffs claiming damages for alleged conspiracy to defraud. They pleaded justification, based on the issue of the writ itself. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Stern v Piper and Others CA 21-May-1996
The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt.
Held: A defamation was not to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.270556

The plaintiff claimed in libel. Drake J upheld a submission that there was no case to go before the jury, in respect that (1) any reasonable jury properly directed would be bound to sustain the defence of fair comment, and (2) there was no evidence of express malice.

Judges:

Drake J

Citations:

Unreported, 24-May-89

Cited by:

Appeal from – Telnikoff v Matusevitch CA 1991
The court considered the element of malice in a defamation defence: ‘If a piece of evidence is equally consistent with malice and the absence of malice, it cannot as a matter of law provide evidence on which the jury could find malice. The judge . .
At first instance – Telnikoff v Matusevitch HL 14-Nov-1991
The court should decide on whether an article is ‘fact or comment’ purely by reference to the article itself, and not taking into account any of the earlier background coverage. It is the obligation of the relevant commentator to make clear that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.253572

A non-trading corporation (a trade union) which had been assimilated to a trading corporation sought damages for defamation.

Citations:

[1946] KB 81

Cited by:

Cited – Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 18-Feb-1993
Local Council may not Sue in Defamation
Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which . .
Cited – Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl HL 11-Oct-2006
The House was asked as to the capacity of a limited company to sue for damage to its reputation, where it had no trading activity within the jurisdiction, and as to the extent of the Reynolds defence. The defendants/appellants had published an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.245338

Defendant’s application for strike out of claim as an abuse.

Judges:

Cook M

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 375 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.633840

Lopes LJ said: ‘The effect of the occasion being privileged is to render it incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove malice, that is, to shew some indirect motive not connected with the privilege, so as to take the statement made by the defendant out of the protection afforded by the privileged occasion. This he may do either by extrinsic evidence, by which I mean something outside the statement itself, or by intrinsic evidence, by which I mean something contained in the statement itself.’

Judges:

Lopes LJ

Citations:

[1895] 2 QB 156

Cited by:

Appeal from – Neville v Fine Arts Company 1897
When establishing a defamatory meaning in the words complained of ‘it is not enough to say that by some person or another the words might be understood in a defamatory sense.’ (Lord Halsbury LC) . .
Cited – Beech v Freeson QBD 1972
The defendant, a Member of Parliament, wrote a letter to the Law Society with a copy to the Lord Chancellor, saying that he had been specifically requested by a constituent to refer the plaintiffs’ solicitors’ firm to the Law Society for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.539181

Eady J explained the background and legislative purpose of the 1996 Act provisions for offers of amends.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2345 (QB), [2003] 1 WLR 2201

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1996 2

Cited by:

Cited – Murray v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 15-Apr-2014
Application to read unilateral statement in satisfaction of defamation claim.
Held: It follows from the terms of section 3 of the 1996 Act that the court should not regard as normal an oral hearing of submissions by a defendant that a claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.523815

The defendant trust’s press officer had issued information to the press which was defamatory of the claimant in response to inquiries from the press indicating that articles based on the claimant’s criticisms of the trust were about to be published. The court heard an interlocutory appeal against the Master’s refusal to strike out the claimant’s case saying that it had the protection of qualified privilege.
Held: This form of qualified privilege extends to a statement in rebuttal of an anticipated attack. It would be bad law to treat a response to an attack as privileged but not ‘a pre-emptive press release intended to stop the mischief which would be done by publication’.

Judges:

Sir Maurice Drake

Citations:

Unreported, 16 October 1997

Cited by:

Doubted – Bento v The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police QBD 1-Jun-2012
The claimant had been convicted of the murder of his girlfriend. On his acquittal on appeal, the police criticised the CPS decision not to retry the claimant, in effect, the claimant now said, continuing the accusation against him, and so defaming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.460274

The court considered the protection of a witness in court from defamation actions and otherwise.
Held: Sir Alexander Cockburn CJ said: ‘I am very far from desiring to be considered as laying down as law that what a witness states altogether out of the character and sphere of a witness, or what he may say dehors the matter in hand, is necessarily protected.’
Bramwell JA said: ‘I am by no means sure that the word ‘relevant’ is the best word that could be used; the phrases used by the Lord Chief Baron and the Lord Chancellor in Dawkins v Lord Rokeby, would seem preferable, ‘having reference,’ or ‘made with reference to the inquiry” and ‘I think the words ‘having reference to the inquiry’ ought to have a very wide and comprehensive application, and ought not to be limited to statements for which, if not true, a witness might be indicted for perjury, or the exclusion of which by the judge would give ground for a new trial; but ought to extend to that which a witness might naturally and reasonably say when giving evidence with reference to the inquiry as to which he had been called as a witness.’

Judges:

Sir Alexander Cockburn CJ, Bramwell JA

Citations:

(1876) 2 CPD 53

Cited by:

Cited – Samuels v Coole and Haddock (a Firm) CA 22-May-1997
The defendant solicitors had acted for defendants in an action brought by the plaintiff. They swore and filed an affidavit in support of an application to strike out elements of the action. The affidavit spoke as to abusive and threatening calls and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.443550

The paper had carried an article with a swingeing condemnation of a musical. It defended the defamation action claiming fair comment.
Held: Collins MR said that there was no evidence of actual malice, no personal imputations and no allegations of fact. In these circumstances, if comment was to be ‘fair’ it had to be relevant and not such as to disclose in itself actual malice.

Judges:

Collins MR

Citations:

[1903] 2 KB 100

Cited by:

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: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.427734

(Note) The plaintiff complained of a publication by the defendant that he was a ‘quack of the rankest species’.
Held: Lord Atkinson said that a personal attack could form part of a fair comment on facts stated provided that it was a reasonable inference from those facts.

Citations:

[1908] 2 KB 325

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hunt v Star Newspaper Co Ltd CA 1908
The defendant’s publication imputed to the plaintiff improper conduct in the discharge of his duties as a deputy returning officer at a municipal election. The defendant pleaded fair comment.
Held: The complaint related to allegations of fact . .
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: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.427735

The court was asked whether interrogatories should be ordered in relation to the question of whether a defendant who was relying on the defence of fair comment had been activated by malice.
Held: Lord Justice Denning said: ‘The truth is that the burden on the defendant who pleads fair comment is already heavy enough. If he proves that the facts were true and that the comments, objectively considered, were fair, that is, if they were fair when considered without regard to the state of mind of the writer, I should not have thought that the plaintiff had much to complain about; nevertheless it has been held that the plaintiff can still succeed if he can prove that the comments, subjectively considered, were unfair because the writer was actuated by malice.’

Judges:

Denning LJ

Citations:

[1951] 1 KB 354

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.427742

The defendant town clerk sent out a notice of a meeting of the borough council to consider a committee report about the loss of petrol from one of the council’s depots. The report was attached to the notice which was posted at the town hall and in public libraries. The plaintiffs complained that the report was defamatory of them, in alleging theft. The defendants pleaded that the publication was made on a privileged occasion on the ground that there was a common interest between the council and the ratepayers in the subject matter of the words complained of.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. No privilege could attach to such a publication. There was no public interest in such allegations being publicised generally. However, there might be reasons justifying publication of ex parte allegations, for instance publication by an employer of allegations against an employee which resulted in the latter’s dismissal ‘to bring home to its employees the type of action which was regarded . . as a proper subject for . . dismissal’.

Judges:

Lord Greene MR

Citations:

[1942] 1 KB 156

Cited by:

Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Jul-2010
The claimant police officer complained of an article he said was defamatory in saying he was being investigated for allegations of accepting bribes. The article remained on the internet even after he was cleared. Each party appealed interim orders. . .
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd SC 21-Mar-2012
The defendant had published an article which was defamatory of the claimant police officer, saying that he was under investigation for alleged corruption. The inquiry later cleared him. The court was now asked whether the paper had Reynolds type . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.421378

May LJ said that the three questions which a Judge has to decide under section 69 so as to conclude whether a defamation trial should by by jury or judge alone, ‘requires a value judgment, based on what he is told by counsel, and his experience at the Bar and on the Bench.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[1988] 1 WLR 49, [1987[ 3 All ER 499

Statutes:

Supreme Courts Act 1981 69

Cited by:

Cited – Fiddes v Channel Four Television Corporation and Others CA 29-Jun-2010
The claimants in a defamation case made an interlocutory appeal against an order for trial by judge alone. The parties had agreed for trial by jury, but the defendants made a late application for trial by judge alone.
Held: The claimant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.420029

An innuendo in an action of slander, cannot superinduce a fact, which, if true, would alter the nature of the offence imputed to the plaintiff.

Citations:

[1653] EngR 1261, (1653) Cro Eliz 834, (1653) 78 ER 1060 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Defamation

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.413568

Austlii (Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal) DEFAMATION – nature of- actual disparagement of the plaintiff’s reputation – reputation includes general character and standing and trade, business or professional reputation – DEFAMATION – what is defamatory – requires publication likely to cause ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general, to think the less of plaintiff – DEFAMATION – nature of injury to business reputation – whether to be determined by reference to whether publication likely to cause ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general, to think the less of plaintiff – JURY – directions to jury as to standards by which to determine whether an imputation injures plaintiff’s trade, business or professional reputation

Judges:

Spigelman CJ Hodgson JA McColl JA

Citations:

[2008] NSWCA 66

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Apr-2010
The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.408776

Citations:

Times 23-Oct-1950

Cited by:

Cited – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Apr-2010
The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.408772

The court was asked whether a slander conveyed an imputation on the plaintiff in his business as a solicitor and was therefore actionable in the absence of proof of special damage.
Held: AL Smith MR said: ‘The words do not, in my opinion, reasonably convey any imputation of impropriety or misconduct on the part of the plaintiff in relation to or in connection with his profession or business, or of unfitness to carry on his business in a proper and satisfactory manner. To my mind the two expressions – that the plaintiff has gone for thousands or has lost thousands – mean very much the same thing, namely, that the plaintiff has lost a considerable sum of money. It would not be reasonable to say that they [the words complained of] impute to him any want of capacity to carry on the business or profession of a solicitor.’

Judges:

AL Smith MR

Citations:

[1901] 2 KB 441

Cited by:

Cited – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Apr-2010
The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.408774

Kelly CB said: ‘[t]o impute to an architect employed in the restoration of an ancient church that he has no experience in the work in which he has been employed is itself a libel upon the architect in the way of his profession or calling . . and further to write of an architect that by his acting in the work in question the masonry of an ancient gem of art will be ignorantly tampered with is in itself libellous.’

Judges:

Kelly CB

Citations:

(1879) 41 LTNS 588

Cited by:

Cited – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Apr-2010
The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.408773

One said of him, Thou art forsworn, and hast taken a false oath at Hereford Assises, against such a one, naming the party. Arid the opinion of the Court (the Chief Justice and Justice Crooke being absent) was against the action. But they conceived that the action would have lied, if the defendant had said, Thou art forsworn, and hast taken a false oath at the Assises, against such an one, with averment that he was sworn in the cause.
It was said at the Bar, that it was adjudged in this Court in Appletons case, that where a man said unto another by way of interrogatory, Where is my piece thou stolest from me? that it was actionable. Justice Jones remembred this case, where one said, J. S. told me, that J. N. stole a horse, but I do not believe him. This with averment that J. S. did not say any such thing, would bear an action. Justice Barkley said, that an action was brought upon these words, You are no thief? and that these words with averment, which imply an affirmative, will bear an action.
It was said to a merchant, that he was a cousening knave. And the opinion of the Court was, (the Chief Justice and Justice Crooke being absent) that the words were not actionable, because he doth not touch him in his profession, for the words are too general : but it was said, that to call him bankrupt was actionable. And in all cases where a man is touched in his profession, the words are actionable. But to call a lawyer a bankrupt, is not actionable. Justice Jones said, that Serjeant Heath brought an action for these words : one said of him, that he had undone many ; and it was adjudged actionable ; because he touched him in his profession.
Kingston upon Hull is a particular and limitcd jurisdiction, and they held plea of and which was made out of their jurisdiction ; and thereupon a capias was awarded against the obligor, who was arrested upon it, and suffered by the sheriff to escape : and the opinion of the Court was clear, that no escape would lie against the sheriff, upon the difference in the case of the Marshalsea, that if the Court hold plea of a thing within their jurisdiction, but proceed erroneously, that it is avoidable by error ; but if they have not jurisdiction of the cause, all is void, and coram non judice. 11 H. 4. and 19 E. 4. acc. So in the principal case : for they held plea of a thing which was out of their jurisdiction, and therefore the whole proceeding being void, no action can lie against the sheriff, for there was no escape.

Citations:

[1675] EngR 1528, (1675) March NR 7, (1675) 82 ER 387

Links:

Commonlii

Defamation

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.405653

Action for words, Mr. Deceiver hath deceived arid cozened the King, 1 Roll, 82. 2 Ro. R. 148. 2 Cro. 557. GodB. 341. Mod. B. 23 Hetl. 13

Citations:

[1792] EngR 838, (1792) Hob 267, (1792) 80 ER 413

Links:

Commonlii

Defamation

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.359050

There is no defence in defamation in the law of England and Wales that the Plaintiff is a public figure. That would be to import a defence from the United States.

Citations:

Times 28-Dec-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bennett and others v Guardian Newspapers Limited CA 22-Jan-1997
The existence of other rumours as to a plaintiff’s character do not reduce the damages to be awarded for the distress caused by the libel in a libel action. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.78334

Where the defamatory allegations are in fact untrue, the defence of fair comment is available only where the occasion was privileged.

Citations:

[1909] 2 KB 958

Cited by:

Cited – London Artists Ltd v Littler CA 10-Dec-1968
The defence of fair comment on matters of public interest is not to be defined too closely. Lord Denning MR said: ‘Whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.270510

The defendants had published an article stating simply and solely that a writ had been issued against the four plaintiffs claiming damages for alleged conspiracy to defraud. They pleaded justification, based on the issue of the writ itself. The plaintiffs attacked this plea on the grounds that it offended against the repetition rule.
Held: The attack failed. It was arguable that the defence put forward of justification could be supported by a reference to the issue of a writ. Morris LJ said that it could not be said that these particulars could not justify some conceivable defamatory meaning that somebody might say was the ordinary meaning of those words.

Judges:

Hodson LJ, Morris LJ.

Citations:

[1959] 1 QB 413

Cited by:

Cited – Waters v Sunday Pictorial Newspapers Ltd CA 1961
The defendants published an article describing the plaintiff estate agent as ‘a notorious dodgy operator of London slum properties’. The article quoted statements by Lord Goddard CJ 8 years before describing the plaintiff’s estate agency as ‘a . .
Cited – Stern v Piper and Others CA 21-May-1996
The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt.
Held: A defamation was not to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.270555

Words which have only an uncertain import or meaning are not actionable in defamation.

Citations:

(1584) Cro Eliz 31, [1584] 78 ER 297

Defamation

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.239970

Judges:

Hallett J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 208 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Hussein v William Hill QBD 20-Jan-2006
. .
Cited – Meadow v General Medical Council Admn 17-Feb-2006
The appellant challenged being struck off the medical register. He had given expert evidence in a criminal case which was found misleading and to have contributed to a wrongful conviction for murder.
Held: The evidence though mistaken was . .
Cited – General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA 26-Oct-2006
The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.238570

The court considered a request from jurors when assessing damages in a defamation trial for details of the movements in share prices of the plaintiff.
Held: No further evidence could be called.

Judges:

Holroyd Pearce LJ

Citations:

[1963] 1 QB 340

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd HL 1964
Ascertaining Meaning of Words for Defamation
The Daily Telegraph had published an article headed ‘Inquiry on Firm by City Police’ and the Daily Mail had published an article headed ‘Fraud Squad Probe Firm’. The plaintiffs claimed that those articles carried the meaning that they were guilty of . .
Cited – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages for defamation. The claimed that the article had caused very substantial losses (andpound;230 million) to them by affecting their market capitalisation value. The defendant sought to strike out that part of the claim. . .
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 – 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 . .
Cited – Weller and Others v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Nov-2015
The three children of a musician complained of the publication of photographs taken of them in a public place in California. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.220034

Citations:

(1670) 6 St Tr 951

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194518

The court discussed the defence of fair comment in political cases: ‘I need hardly say that there is no privilege known to the law which entitles persons engaged in politics to misstate a fact about their opponent provided that they say it honestly even though untruthfully. They can comment upon the conduct of persons in public life, provided they do so honestly and without malice.’

Judges:

Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1962] 1 WLR 1469

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194517

A newspaper had published an anonymous letter concerning the fitness for office of the pursuer who was seeking re-election as a member of a town council and to the public office of Dean of Guild. The publisher refused to disclose the name of the writer of the letter which he had published in his newspaper. It was held that he could not plead privilege in action to the pursuer’s action of damages. ‘It appears to me that, whatever might be the case if these statements had been made in an editorial article, about which I give no opinion, the fact that they were made in an anonymous letter is quite sufficient for the decision of this case. It is difficult to define the exact extent of the privilege of comment which the editor of a newspaper undoubtedly has to some extent upon the doings of public men; it is difficult to define what the class of public men is with reference to whose doings he enjoys that privilege, or what the kind of accusations that may be brought against the conduct of public men is; and yet again it is difficult to distinguish between the doings of a public man, as a public man, and as a private individual.’ and ‘But we are relieved of all these difficulties in the present case by the fact that the statements complained of are contained in an anonymous letter to the editor. The editor has declined to disclose the author. The effect of this in point of law is not to entitle this letter to be dealt with as if it had appeared in a leading article or in some part of the paper in which the editor speaks for himself. The law is that the editor accepts the position of the anonymous writer with every liability which could have been laid upon that writer if he had been disclosed. The question, then, is whether malice would require to be put in issue against the writer if he had been disclosed. ‘ and ‘Now, the answer to that question will depend upon who the writer was, and what his connection was with the matters on which he writes. But in the present case we cannot ascertain who the writer was, whether he was a ratepayer in Wick, whether he ever was in Wick in his life, or whether he is even a subject of Her Majesty. In short, we know nothing about him; he is a mere umbra. He is somebody who has libelled the pursuer, and is not in a position to justify that libel by proving its truth, or to justify it by saying that he has a privilege.’ and ‘The newspaper editor can be in no better position then than the anonymous writer himself. Now, if the letter was written with malice, it is conceded that the pursuer is entitled to damages. But how can anyone prove malice on the part of a person of whom he knows nothing at all? What can he tell of his state of mind, or his relation to the matter on which he comments? Or how, on the other hand, can malice in such a case be disproved?’

Judges:

Lord President Inglis, Lord Shand

Citations:

(1885) 12 R 1016

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Followed – McKerchar v Cameron 1892
A newspaper published an anonymous letter containing statements that the pursuer, a salaried official, was unfit for his post as a teacher in a public school. It was argued that the ratepayers and inhabitants of the neighbourhood had an interest and . .
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194522

The pursuer sought election as a county councillor for a division where a parish had been divided into two electoral divisions for county council purposes. The defender lived in the same parish but he was an elector in the other division. He had made various statements to people in the parish that the pursuer was not fit to be elected as he would soon be bankrupt. His argument was that the statements were made in circumstances that were privileged, as he was a ratepayer in the parish and the pursuer was a candidate for the public post of county councillor on one of the divisions of that parish. It was rejected, simply on the ground that he was not a voter in the election with reference to which he was said to have made the statements complained of.

Citations:

(1891) 18 R 467

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194520

The plaintiff claimed in libel, alleging certain meanings. The defendant sought to plead in justification to support certain defamatory meanings, but not those alleged.
Held: Where the words used were capable of being read by the judge to imply the meanings supported by the proposed defence, the defendant could advance that defence even though the plaintiff had not raised them. However, a defendant pleading such a justification must plead the exact meaning, and the facts which support it. The defence as filed was deficient, but could be corrected by appropriate amendment.
Furthermore, it is not open to a defendant to plead specific facts in partial justification of a libel with the sole purpose of mitigating damages.

Judges:

Purchas LJ

Citations:

[1988] 1 WLR 77, [1988] 1 All ER 300

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Branson v Snowden; Branson v Gtech UK Corporation (a Body Corporate) and Rendine CA 3-Jul-1997
The respective parties had been preparing competing bids for the National Lottery. One (Branson) alleged that the other had offerered a bribe. The other responded that the allegation was a lie, and each sued the other for defamation.
Held: The . .
Cited – McDonalds Corp and Another v Steel and Another CA 25-Mar-1994
The plaintiff company had sued the defendants in defamation with regard to a leaflet publishd and distributed by them. The defendants argued justification. The defendants appealed against an order striking out parts of their defence, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185961

Where a defendant in a defamation action states clearly his intention to defend the action pleading justification, the court will not intervene to prevent repetition of the alleged defamatory words.

Citations:

(1912) 28 T L R 308

Cited by:

Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Contempt of Court

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182813

A complaint to the Law Society or its equivalent had been held to be made on occasion of absolute privilege.

Citations:

(1892) 61 LJQB 727

Cited by:

Cited – White v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD 1-Apr-2011
The claimant doctor sued in defamation for letters written by the defendants to the Fitness to Practice Directorate. She now sought to appeal against a finding that she could not rely upon one letter which had come to her attention through . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180925

The judge may disclose to the jury the purpose of a non-party’s involvement as a backer of a party if it is relevant to the case.
Simon Brown LJ said as to an allegation that the claim was an abuse of process: ‘The cases appear to suggest two distinct categories of such misuse of process:
(i) The achievement of a collateral advantage beyond the proper scope of the action – a classic instance was Grainger v Hill where the proceedings of which complaint was made had been designed quite improperly to secure for the claimants a ship’s register to which they had no legitimate claim whatever . .
(ii) The conduct of the proceedings themselves not so as to vindicate a right but rather in a manner designed to cause the defendant problems of expense, harassment, commercial prejudice or the like beyond those ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation.
Only in the most clear and obvious case will it be appropriate upon preliminary application to strike out proceedings as an abuse of process so as to prevent a plaintiff from bringing an apparently proper cause of action to trial.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Times 27-Nov-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wallis v Valentine and Others CA 18-Jul-2002
The claimant in a defamation case appealed a decision to strike out his claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process, being intended to act as an harassment of the defendant, or to cause commercial embarrassment or undue cost.
Held: . .
Cited – Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham In London Borough of Haringey QBD 1-Feb-2013
The claimant, former chairman of the Thailand Football Association, claimed in defamation against the defendant who had been chairman of the English Football Association. The defendant asked the court to strike out the claim, saying that some of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.78714