Judges:

Nicklin J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 213 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.633458

Stephane Grappelli, an renowned musician, employed the defendants to promote him. They purported to arrange various concerts, but did so without his authority. When they were cancelled, they told the venue owners that they were cancelled because the plaintiff was ‘very seriously ill in Paris’ and that it would be surprising ‘if he ever toured again’. About five months later the defendants by advertisement and a press release announced a number of concerts to be given by the plaintiff at different places on dates which included some of the dates on which the first concerts were to have taken place. The plaintiff claimed damages for injurious falsehood, and for libel alleging that the facts gave rise to an innuendo that the plaintiff had given a false reason for cancelling the concert which he knew to be false. The defendant sought to strike out the allegation of libel and slander because the pleadings did not identify any members of the public who were alleged to acknowledge of the intrinsic facts supporting the innuendo. The defendant appealed against rejection of this argument.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A claimant cannot rely on events subsequent to publication to establish that the words referred, or would have been understood to refer to him.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Upon this point we heard interesting discussion on both sides. I would go by the principle, which is well-established, that in defamation – be it libel or slander – the cause of action is the publication of defamatory words of and concerning the plaintiff. The cause of action arises when those words are published to the person by whom they are read or heard. The cause of action arises then: and not later.’
C-D Dunn LJ said: ‘Like Lord Denning MR, I would prefer to deal with this on principle. I agree that a publication is an essential part of the cause of action; that once there is publication the cause of action is complete, and there is no room for the doctrine that the cause of action can, so to speak, be allowed to be inchoate or lie dormant until such time as some fact emerges which would transform an otherwise innocent statement into a defamatory one . . .’

Judges:

Denning MR, Templeman and Dunn LJJ

Citations:

[1981] 2 All ER 272, [1981] 1 WLR 822

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Simons Proprietary Ltd v Riddle 1941
(New Zealand) Blair J said: ‘On the authorities – see Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers 1929] 2KB 331 and Tolley v. JS Fry and Sons Ltd. [1930] 1 KB 467 – innocent matter may be given a defamatory meaning by readers with knowledge of facts not . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wright v Caan QBD 27-Jul-2011
The claimant sought damages in defamation and malicious falsehood and in respect of a conversation with a journalist and the defendant’s website. The defendant had made offers of support to her business venture in a television program. After she . .
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 . .
Cited – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (1) CA 12-Sep-2017
Defamation – presumption of damage after 2013 Act
The claimant said that the defendant had published defamatory statements which were part of a campaign of defamation brought by his former wife. The court now considered the requirement for substantiality in the 2013 Act.
Held: The defendant’s . .
Cited – Simon and Others v Lyder and Another PC 29-Jul-2019
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board was asked as to the well-known conundrum in the common law of defamation, namely the extent to which (if at all) two or more different statements made upon different occasions by the same defendant may be aggregated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.442250

The defendants, who were the proprietors and publishers of a newspaper, published in an article in their paper defamatory statements of a named person believed by the writer of the article and by the defendants to be a fictitious personage with an unusual name not likely to be that of an existing individual; the name was in fact that of the plaintiff, who was unknown to the writer of the article and to the editor of the newspaper. During the trial of an action for libel it was admitted that neither the writer nor the defendants intended the defamatory statements to apply to the plaintiff, but evidence was given by friends of the plaintiff who had read the article that they thought the article referred to him. On appeal by the defendants from a verdict and judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
Held: (Lord Alverstone CJ and Farwell LJ (Fletcher Moulton LJ dissenting) The plaintiff was entitled to succeed.
Per Lord Alverstone CJ: Where an untrue and defamatory statement in writing is published without lawful excuse, which in the opinion of the jury upon the evidence refers to the plaintiff, the cause of action is made out, the question not being whether the defendant intended the defamatory language to refer to the plaintiff, but whether it was understood by reasonable people who knew the plaintiff to refer to him.
Per Fletcher Moulton LJ: In order to prove the allegation in an action of libel that the defamatory words were written and published ‘ of and concerning the plaintiff ‘ it must be shewn affirmatively that the defendant intended them to refer to the plaintiff.
Per Farwell LJ : It is not enough for a plaintiff in libel to shew that the defendant has made a libellous statement, and that the plaintiff’s friends and acquaintances believe it to be written of him : he must also prove that the defendant printed and published it of him. This can be done not only by shewing that such was the defendant’s actual intention, but also by shewing that the statement is made recklessly, careless whether it fits the plaintiff or not. The question is not what the defendant really intended in his heart, but what his words taken with the relevant surrounding circumstances and fairly construed mean. The fact that the plaintiff was unknown to the defendant is not of itself a conclusive defence.

Judges:

Lord Alverstone CJ, Fletcher Moulton LJ, Farwell LJ

Citations:

[1909] UKLawRpKQB 110, (1909) 2 KB 444

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Mentioned – Emmens v Pottle CA 1885
A subordinate distributor, here a vendor of newspapers, can plead the common law defence to defamation, of innocent dissemination.
Held: The vendor was prima facie liable, and therefore had to demonstrate the defence to avoid liability. He . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hulton and Co v Jones HL 6-Dec-1909
The defendant newspaper published an article describing the attendance at a motor race at Dieppe. It described the antics, intending to refer to a fictitious person, of one Artemus Jones, and said of him that he was ‘with a woman who is not his . .
Cited – Simon and Others v Lyder and Another PC 29-Jul-2019
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board was asked as to the well-known conundrum in the common law of defamation, namely the extent to which (if at all) two or more different statements made upon different occasions by the same defendant may be aggregated . .
Cited – Bradley and another v Independent Star Newspapers 1-Jun-2011
(Supreme Court of Ireland) A claimant can give evidence about persons who made contact with him and by their conduct or statements had indicated they had identified him as the subject of the libel, or evidence that he had been the subject of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.653304

The parties had been married and divorced. Mrs S told M S’s new partner on Facebook that he had tried to strangle her and made other allegations. Mrs S now appealed from a finding that she had defamed him. Lord Kerr restated the approach to meaning in defamation actions: ‘Therein lies the danger of the use of dictionary definitions to provide a guide to the meaning of an alleged defamatory statement. That meaning is to be determined according to how it would be understood by the ordinary reasonable reader. It is not fixed by technical, linguistically precise dictionary definitions, divorced from the context in which the statement was made.’ It is the ‘court’s duty to step aside from a lawyerly analysis’.
There is an artificiality in choosing a single meaning from a series of words that individual listeners or readers may understand in different ways, but this approach is well-established and it provides a practicable, workable solution.
‘the primary role of the court is to focus on how the ordinary reasonable reader would construe the words. And this highlights the court’s duty to step aside from a lawyerly analysis and to inhabit the world of the typical reader of a Facebook post. To fulfil that obligation, the court should be particularly conscious of the context in which the statement was made . .’

Judges:

Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 17, [2019] WLR(D) 214, [2019] 3 All ER 647, [2019] EMLR 18, [2019] 2 WLR 1033, UKSC 2018/0045

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 01 24 am Videa, SC 2019 01 24 pm Video

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Stocker v Stocker CA 24-Mar-2015
Application for leave to appeal . .
See Also – Stocker v Stocker QBD 10-Jun-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by his former wife in a post on facebook. The posting and associatedeEmails were said falsely to have accused him of serious abuse, and that the accusations had undermined his relationship with his new partner.
See Also – Stocker v Stocker QBD 29-Jan-2016
Application on pre-trial review . .
Appeal from – Stocker v Stocker CA 12-Feb-2018
Defamation proceedings after divorce.
Sharp LJ said this about the use of dictionaries as a means of deciding the meaning to be given to a statement alleged to be defamatory: ‘The use of dictionaries does not form part of the process of . .
Cited – Oriental Daily Publisher Ltd v Ming Pao Holdings Ltd 2013
(Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal) Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury said 138 that the criticism of the single meaning rule’s artificiality and (implicitly) its irrationality was misplaced. He suggested that the identification of a single meaning to be . .
Cited – Nevill (Lord William) v Fine Art and General Insurance Company HL 8-Dec-1896
The appellant acted for some time as agent to an insurance company at his own offices. After some correspondence as to a change of terms upon which the parties could not agree, the company’s secretary sent to persons who insured through the . .
Cited – Monir v Wood QBD 19-Dec-2018
The court considered an online allegation of involvement in child sex abuse which was described as ‘life changing’ and having transformed the life of the claimant and his family and left him a recluse. Notwithstanding the ‘fairly limited . .
Cited – Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd CA 1968
Courts to Settle upon a single meaning if disputed
The ‘single meaning’ rule adopted in the law of defamation is in one sense highly artificial, given the range of meanings the impugned words sometimes bear. The law of defamation ‘has passed beyond redemption by the courts’. Where in a libel action . .
Cited – Bukovsky v Crown Prosecution Service CA 13-Oct-2017
Appeal from strike out of defamation claim, based upon press release by the respondent in a charging announcement. The claim had been struck out on the basis that the words complained of did not have the defamatory meaning alleged.
Held: . .
Cited – Skuse v Granada Television CA 30-Mar-1993
The claimant complained that the defendant had said in a television programme that he had failed to act properly when presenting his expert forensic evidence in court in the trial of the Birmingham Six.
Held: The court should give to the . .
Cited – Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres and Another CA 23-Jul-2001
The claimant appealed after closing her action for an alleged defamation by the respondents in a leaflet published by them. She challenged an interim decision by the judge as to the meaning of the words complained of.
Held: The leaflet made . .
Cited – Monroe v Hopkins QBD 28-Mar-2017
Ruling – Permission to Appeal – The defendant sought leave to appeal against the award of 24,000 pounds in damages for two teweets found to have been defamatory of the claimant.
Warby J said this about tweets posted on Twitter: ‘The most . .
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 – Housen v Nikolaisen 28-Mar-2002
Supreme Court of Canada – Torts – Motor vehicles – Highways – Negligence – Liability of rural municipality for failing to post warning signs on local access road — Passenger sustaining injuries in motor vehicle accident on rural road — Trial judge . .
Cited – Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd and Another CA 31-Jan-2008
Whether Statement defamatory at common law
The claimant appealed against a striking out of her claim for defamation on finding that the words did not have the defamatory meaning complained of, namely that she was transgendered or transsexual.
Held: The appeal failed.
Sir Anthony . .
Cited – McAlpine v Bercow QBD 2014
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in making a false allegation against him.
Held: The second Jeynes principle does not mean that the court must always choose the least defamatory meaning available. Where there are two possible . .
Cited – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another (Scotland) SC 31-Jul-2013
The parties were father and son, living at first in the US. On the son’s wife becoming seriously ill, the son returned to Scotland. The father advanced a substantal sum for the purchase of a property to live in, but the son put the properties in his . .
Cited – Smith v ADVFN Plc and others QBD 25-Jul-2008
The claimant had brought multiple actions in defamation against anonymous posters on an online forum. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions. The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs . .
Cited – Cruddas v Calvert and Others CA 21-Jun-2013
The claimant sought damages alleging both defamation and malicious falsehood. The parties appealed against the ruling that in a malicious falsehood claim, the court would accept mutiple meanings of the words used. . .
Cited – Waterson v Lloyd MP and Another CA 28-Feb-2013
The former MP for Eastbourne had brought an action for defamation against the appellant, the current MP and his agent in respect of election materials used by them. The appellants had relied on the defence of fair comment, and now appealed against . .
Cited – Cammish v Hughes CA 12-Dec-2012
Arden LJ summarised the law as regard abuse of process claims in defamation cases, saying that while the court must provide a remedy in a case that requires one, the process of the court should not be used in a case where the need has gone away. . .

Cited by:

Cited – ZC v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust QBD 26-Jul-2019
Defamation/privacy claims against doctors failed
The claimant, seeking damages for alleged defamation, now asked for the case to be anonymised.
Held: The conditions for anonymisation were not met. The anonymity would be retained temporarily until any time for appeal had passed.
As to . .
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 . .
Cited – Ware v Wimborne-Idrissi and Others QBD 13-Aug-2021
Judgment after a trial of preliminary issues relating to the meaning of the words complained of in a claim for libel. . .
Cited – Simon and Others v Lyder and Another PC 29-Jul-2019
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board was asked as to the well-known conundrum in the common law of defamation, namely the extent to which (if at all) two or more different statements made upon different occasions by the same defendant may be aggregated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.635238

Test For Defamatory Meaning

The plaintiff complained that the defendant had written in a telegram to accuse him of enticing away a servant. The House considered the process of deciding whether words were defamatory.
Held: The telegram was incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
Lord Atkin set out a test: ‘The question, then, is whether the words in their ordinary signification are capable of being defamatory . . Judges and text book writers alike have found difficulty in defining with precision the word ‘defamatory’. The conventional phrase exposing the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt is probably too narrow. The question is complicated by having to consider the person or class of persons, whose reaction to the publication is the test of the wrongful character of the words used. I do not intend to ask your Lordships to lay down a formal definition, but after collating the opinions of many authorities I propose in the present case the test: would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally? . . It is well settled that the judge must decide whether the words are capable of a defamatory meaning. That is a question of law: is there evidence of a tort? If they are capable, then the jury is to decide whether they are defamatory.’
and ‘. . the question of what is defamatory is complicated by the need to consider the class of persons whose reaction to the publication is the test.’
After considering the words of Pollock CB in Clay v Roberts, he said: ‘[that] juries should be free to award damages for injuries to reputation is one of the safeguards of liberty. But the protection is undermined when exhibitions of bad manners or discourtesy are placed on the same level as attacks on character and are treated as actionable wrongs.’

Judges:

Lord Atkin

Citations:

[1936] 2 All ER 1237, 80 Sol Jo 703, (1936) 52 TLR 669

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Clay v Roberts 1863
Pollock CB considered the requirements for words to be considered defamatory and said: ‘There is a distinction between imputing what is merely a breach of conventional etiquette and what is illegal, mischievous, or sinful.’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mccann v Scottish Media Newspapers Ltd SCS 18-Feb-1999
Three articles which appeared in one edition of a newspaper had to be read together and treated as ‘constituting a whole’ for the purposes of determining meaning, where the first ended with a cross-reference to the second, and the second ended with . .
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 – 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 – Rufus v Elliott QBD 1-Nov-2013
The parties were former footballers involved in charitable works. The claimant said that an allegation by the defendant that he the claimant had released for publication a text message in which the the defendant was said to have used extremely . .
Cited – Uppal v Endemol UK Ltd and Others QBD 9-Apr-2014
The claimant alleged defamation by other contestants at the time when she was participating in the defendants’ TV show, Big Brother. The defendants had broadcast the material. The defendant now sought a ruling that the words complained of were not . .
Cited – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – ZC v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust QBD 26-Jul-2019
Defamation/privacy claims against doctors failed
The claimant, seeking damages for alleged defamation, now asked for the case to be anonymised.
Held: The conditions for anonymisation were not met. The anonymity would be retained temporarily until any time for appeal had passed.
As to . .
Cited – Simon and Others v Lyder and Another PC 29-Jul-2019
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board was asked as to the well-known conundrum in the common law of defamation, namely the extent to which (if at all) two or more different statements made upon different occasions by the same defendant may be aggregated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.236344

The House described the different origins of libel and slander. Libel was regarded by the Court of Star Chamber not merely as a crime punishable as such, but also as a wrong carrying the penalty of general damages, and this remedy was carried forward by the common law courts after Star Chamber was abolished by the Long Parliament. Slander, on the other hand, was never punished in the civil courts as a crime. The old local courts used to take cognisance of it as giving rise to claims for compensation, and when those courts decayed, the entire jurisdiction in cases of defamation appeared to have passed at first to the Courts of the Church rather than the Courts of the King. Following the Reformation, the Courts of the King assumed concurrent jurisdiction in claims arising out of spoken defamation: ‘As might have been expected of civil courts, whose concern had been primarily with material rights and not with discipline as such, the new jurisdiction in claims based on slander appears to have been directed to the ascertainment of actual damage suffered and to a remedy limited to such damage. This explains the restricted character of the development of the remedy and the tendency to confine its scope by the assertion that actual damage was the gist of the action.’

Judges:

Viscount Haldane, Lord Sumner

Citations:

[1916] 2 AC 481, [1916] UKHL 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Allsop v Allsop 25-Apr-1860
Complaint was made of illness allegedly caused by a slanderous imputation of unchastity to a married woman. The woman heard the slander at third hand. It was held that the woman could not claim special damages for her illness in an action for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Watkins v Secretary of State for The Home Departmentand others CA 20-Jul-2004
The claimant complained that prison officers had abused the system of reading his solicitor’s correspondence whilst he was in prison. The defendant argued that there was no proof of damage.
Held: Proof of damage was not necessary in the tort . .
Cited – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Simon and Others v Lyder and Another PC 29-Jul-2019
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board was asked as to the well-known conundrum in the common law of defamation, namely the extent to which (if at all) two or more different statements made upon different occasions by the same defendant may be aggregated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.199937

(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board was asked as to the well-known conundrum in the common law of defamation, namely the extent to which (if at all) two or more different statements made upon different occasions by the same defendant may be aggregated for the purpose of giving rise to a cause of action in defamation, when none of those statements would do so, viewed on its own.
Held: There is no satisfactory resolution of the conundrum, but in this case the appeal could be satisfactorily resolved without doing so – this appeal should be allowed, because the judge was not plainly wrong in his answer to the question whether the two groups of articles could be aggregated.

Judges:

Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden

Citations:

[2019] UKPC 38, [2019] 3 WLR 537, [2019] EMLR 26, [2020] AC 650

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ratcliffe v Evans CA 28-May-1892
The plaintiff was an engineer and boiler-maker. He alleged that a statement in the local newspaper that he had ceased business had caused him loss. The evidence that was given at trial consisted of general evidence of a downturn in trade; but the . .
Cited – Grappelli v Derek Block (Holdings) Ltd CA 20-Jan-1981
Stephane Grappelli, an renowned musician, employed the defendants to promote him. They purported to arrange various concerts, but did so without his authority. When they were cancelled, they told the venue owners that they were cancelled because the . .
Cited – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Hayward v Thompson CA 1981
A later publication by the same defendant can be used to identify the plaintiff in an earlier publication. If the defendant did intend to refer to the plaintiff, it may be enough if the recipient understood it as referring to the plaintiff . .
Cited – Jones v E Hulton and Co CA 26-May-1909
The defendants, who were the proprietors and publishers of a newspaper, published in an article in their paper defamatory statements of a named person believed by the writer of the article and by the defendants to be a fictitious personage with an . .
Cited – Bradley and another v Independent Star Newspapers 1-Jun-2011
(Supreme Court of Ireland) A claimant can give evidence about persons who made contact with him and by their conduct or statements had indicated they had identified him as the subject of the libel, or evidence that he had been the subject of . .
Cited – Baltinos v Foreign Language Publications Pty Ltd 1896
(New South Wales) An article in a Greek language newspaper alleged that a group of people had exploited people seeking permanent residence in Australia. No offender was named, but the article recommended readers watch an episode of an upcoming . .
Cited – Jones v Jones HL 1916
The House described the different origins of libel and slander. Libel was regarded by the Court of Star Chamber not merely as a crime punishable as such, but also as a wrong carrying the penalty of general damages, and this remedy was carried . .
Cited – Sim v Stretch HL 1936
Test For Defamatory Meaning
The plaintiff complained that the defendant had written in a telegram to accuse him of enticing away a servant. The House considered the process of deciding whether words were defamatory.
Held: The telegram was incapable of bearing a . .
Cited – Stocker v Stocker SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties had been married and divorced. Mrs S told M S’s new partner on Facebook that he had tried to strangle her and made other allegations. Mrs S now appealed from a finding that she had defamed him. Lord Kerr restated the approach to meaning . .
Cited – Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .
Cited – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another (Scotland) SC 31-Jul-2013
The parties were father and son, living at first in the US. On the son’s wife becoming seriously ill, the son returned to Scotland. The father advanced a substantal sum for the purchase of a property to live in, but the son put the properties in his . .
Cited – Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Pedavoli 20-Aug-2015
(Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal) There was a salacious article about a teacher. By reason of the inclusion of incorrect information, the article wrongly pointed to the plaintiff as the teacher in question. The principle upheld by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.645931

Malice may exist without an actual intention to injure.

Citations:

[1958] RPC 94

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wilts United Dairies Ltd v Thomas Robinson Sons and Co QBD 1957
Stable J, noted that the case concerned a sweetened condensed milk very similar to the product that his Honour remembered consuming in large quantities at preparatory school, and said: ‘As I understand the law it is this, that if you publish a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.442249

‘You are a rogue, and I will prove you a rogue, for you forged my name,’ are actionable.

Citations:

[1799] EngR 245, (1799) 2 Wils KB 87, (1799) 95 ER 701 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.348072

The House set out how a court should decide whether qualified privilege applied: ‘If the document is capable of a defamatory meaning, then may be considered the point as to whether the occasion was privileged or not. In considering the question whether the occasion was an occasion of privilege, the court will regard the alleged libel and will examine by whom it was published, when, why, and in what circumstances it was published, and will see whether these things establish a relation between the parties which gives rise to a social or moral right or duty, and the consideration of these things may involve the consideration of questions of public policy … .’

Judges:

Earl Loreburn

Citations:

[1916] SC(HL) 158

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

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

Defamation

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.198166

Qualified privilege reporting statutory proceedings stays despite doubts on findings. Jonathan Sumption QC said: ‘Historically, qualified privilege meant a state of affairs which negatived legal malice and meant that the plaintiff had to prove malice in fact. The classic form of qualified privilege, which depends on a social or moral duty to communicate information and a reciprocal duty or interest in receiving it, was never easy for a newspaper to invoke, because a newspaper necessarily publishes its contents indiscriminately. The courts, however, have always recognised that the reporting of certain matters to the public at large is in the public interest because those matters relate to some aspect of the community’s public affairs which it is right should be in the public domain, even if they are defamatory and may be untrue.’

Judges:

Jonathan Sumption QC

Citations:

Times 09-Nov-1994

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952 7

Citing:

Cited – Perera v Peiris PC 1949
Qualified privilege claim upheld
(Ceylon) The ‘Ceylon Daily News’ had published extracts from a report of the Bribery Commission which was critical of Dr. Perera’s lack of frankness in his evidence. The Judicial Committee upheld a claim to qualified privilege. In the light of the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc CA 30-Sep-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90019

Where a plaintiff priest claims that an allegation that he had spent a night with a woman, claims defamation, and asserts that he has not broken his vows, evidence can be called that that wider assertion is untrue.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-1999

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Defamation

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78269

Judges:

Mr Justice Nicol

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 644 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.649913

Ruling on the nature and scope of the claims that can properly be pursued against the publishers of The Sun, the Daily Express and the Daily Star, in respect of a series of articles they published about the claimants in late 2016.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1234 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.617221

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 fraud. The defendants admitted that the articles were defamatory, but they maintained that the articles did not go so far as to include actual guilt of fraud, but something less.
Held: The House defined the general principles for the ascertainment of the meaning of words in defamation proceedings. The test to be applied is what the words would convey to the ordinary reader. The sting alleged may not be so much in the words themselves as in what the ordinary man will infer from them and that that is in consequence regarded as part of the natural and ordinary meaning. ‘The gist of the two paragraphs is that the police, the City Fraud Squad, were inquiring into the appellants’ affairs.’ As to the different categories of justification: ‘In the present case, for example, there could have been three categories of justification – proof of the fact of an inquiry, proof of reasonable grounds for it and proof of guilt.’ A company cannot be injured in its feelings, it can only be injured in its pocket. The injury must sound in money, but the injury need not necessarily be confined to loss of income. Its goodwill may also be injured.
Lord Reid said: ‘What the ordinary man would infer without special knowledge has generally been called the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. But that expression is rather misleading in that it conceals the fact that there are two elements in it. Sometimes it is not necessary to go beyond the words themselves, as where the plaintiff has been called a thief or a murderer. But more often the sting is not so much in the words themselves as in what the ordinary man will infer from them, and that is also regarded as part of their natural and ordinary meaning.
In this case it is, I think, sufficient to put the test in this way. Ordinary men and women have different temperaments and outlooks. Some are unusually suspicious and some are unusually naive. One must try to envisage people between these two extremes and see what is the most damaging meaning they would put on the words in question.
What the ordinary man, not avid for scandal, would read into the words complained of must be a matter of impression.’
As to justification he said: ‘I must notice an argument to the effect that you can only justify a libel that the plaintiffs have so conducted their affairs as to give rise to suspicion of fraud, or as to give rise to an inquiry whether there has been fraud, by proving that they have acted fraudulently. Then it is said that if that is so there can be no difference between an allegation of suspicious conduct and an allegation of guilt. To my mind, there is a great difference between saying that a man has behaved in a suspicious manner and saying that he is guilty of an offence, and I am not convinced that you can only justify the former statement by proving guilt I can well understand that if you say there is a rumour that X is guilty you can only justify it by proving that he is guilty, because repeating someone else’s libellous statement is just as bad as making the statement directly. But I do not think that it is necessary to reach a decision on this matter of justification in order to decide that these paragraphs can mean suspicion but cannot be held to infer guilt.’
Lord Devlin said: ‘My Lords, the natural and ordinary meaning of words ought in theory to be the same for the lawyer as for the layman, because the lawyer’s first rule of construction is that words are to be given their natural and ordinary meaning as popularly understood. The proposition that ordinary words are the same for the lawyer as for the layman is as a matter of pure construction undoubtedly true. But it is very difficult to draw the line between pure construction and implication, and the layman’s capacity for implication is much greater than the lawyer’s. The lawyer’s rule is that the implication must be necessary as well as reasonable. The layman reads in an implication much more freely; and unfortunately, as the law of defamation has to take into account, is especially prone to do so when it is derogatory.’ and
‘It is not, therefore, correct to say as a matter of law that a statement of suspicion imputes guilt. It can be said as a matter of practice that it very often does so, because although book, not all readers will read it from cover to cover. It is, however, clear from that and earlier authorities that the publication must be taken as a whole.
Suspicion of guilt is something very different from proof of guilt, it is the broad impression conveyed by the libel that has to be considered and not the meaning of each word under analysis. A man who wants to talk at large about smoke may have to pick his words very carefully if he wants to exclude the suggestion that there is also a fire; but it can be done. One always gets back to the fundamental question: what is the meaning that the words convey to the ordinary man: you cannot make a rule about that. They can convey a meaning of suspicion short of guilt; but loose talk about suspicion can very easily convey the impression that it is a suspicion that is well founded.’
Lord Devlin said: ‘There is no doubt that in actions for libel the question is what the words would convey to the ordinary man: it is not one of construction in the legal sense. The ordinary man does not live in an ivory tower and he is not inhibited by a knowledge of the rules of construction. So he can and does read between the lines in the light of his general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs . .
What the ordinary man would infer without special knowledge has generally been called the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. But that expression is rather misleading in that it conceals the fact that there are two elements in it. Sometimes it is not necessary to go beyond the words themselves, as where the plaintiff has been called a thief or a murderer. But more often the sting is not so much in the words themselves as in what the ordinary man will infer from them, and that is also regarded as part of their natural and ordinary meaning . .
Ordinary men and woman have different temperaments and outlooks. Some are unusually suspicious and some are unusually naive. One must try to envisage people between these two extremes and see what is the most damaging meaning they would put on the words in question. . . If the ordinary sensible man was capable of thinking that wherever there was a police inquiry there was guilt, it would be almost impossible to give accurate information about anything . .’
As to repetion of the statements of others, Lord Devlin said: ‘For the purposes of the law of libel a hearsay statement is the same as a direct statement, and that is all there is to it.’

Judges:

Lord Devlin, Lord Reid

Citations:

[1964] AC 234, [1963] 1 QB 340, [1964] AC 235, [1963] 2 All ER 151, [1963] 2 WLR 1063

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd CA 1963
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. . .
Cited – Watkin v Hall 1868
The plaintiff was chairman of a railway company. He claimed in defamation after the defendant said there was a rumour of his having failed, thus explaining the fall in the company’s share value.
Held: It was no defence to say that it was true . .
Cited – De Crespigny v Wellesley 9-Feb-1829
In an action for a libel, it is no plea, that the defendant had the libellous statement from another, and upon publication disclosed the author’s name. . .
Cited – McPherson v Daniels 1829
Bayley J said: Upon the great point, viz. whether it is a good defence to an action for slander for a defendant to show he heard it from another, and at that time named the author, I am of the opinion that it is not’ and ‘the law will not permit a . .
Cited – Hough v London Express Newspapers 1940
Otherwise innocent words can acquire a defamatory meaning from surrounding circumstances. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hinduja and Another v Asia TV Limited CA 25-Nov-1997
The procedure for determining whether words were defamatory was intended to be summary; appeals are to be discouraged. The new rule was intended to lay down a swift and inexpensive procedure in chambers to eliminate meanings which the words are . .
Cited – Bookbinder v Tebbitt 1989
The defendant charged the plaintiff with improperly spending andpound;50,000 on over-printing on local authority stationery the message ‘Support Nuclear Free Zones’.
Held: An attempt to plead as justification that the plaintiff had squandered . .
Cited – Loveless v Earl; Capital and Counties (Financial Services) Limited CA 4-Nov-1998
When a defendant claimed qualified privilege and the Plaintiff alleged that the words complained of were issued with malice, the defendant will not prevented from reliance on qualified privilege if it can show that the words have an honestly . .
Mentioned – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – Jameel and Another v Times Newspapers Limited CA 21-Jul-2004
The defendant had published a newspaper article linking the claimant to terrorist activity. The defendants argued that no full accusation was made, but only that the claimant was under investigation for such behaviour, and that the article had . .
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 – Mccann v Scottish Media Newspapers Ltd SCS 18-Feb-1999
Three articles which appeared in one edition of a newspaper had to be read together and treated as ‘constituting a whole’ for the purposes of determining meaning, where the first ended with a cross-reference to the second, and the second ended with . .
Cited – Skuse v Granada Television CA 30-Mar-1993
The claimant complained that the defendant had said in a television programme that he had failed to act properly when presenting his expert forensic evidence in court in the trial of the Birmingham Six.
Held: The court should give to the . .
Cited – Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 30-Jun-2006
The claimant, a professional cyclist, sought damages in defamation, saying that the defendant newspaper had implied that he had taken performance enhancing drugs. The case was to be heard by judge alone. The court considered how to deal with the . .
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 . .
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 – Roberts and Another v Gable and others CA 12-Jul-2007
The claimants appealed a finding of qualified privilege in their claim of defamation by the defendant author and magazine which was said to have accused them of theft and threats of violence against other members of the BNP.
Held: The appeal . .
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 . .
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 – 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 . .
Cited – Freeguard and Another v Martlet Homes Ltd CA 4-Dec-2008
The claimant complained of a defamation alleged in the words ‘Let me know if he is abusive to you’.
Held: The claim failed. The words complained of did not carry a defamatory meaning. There was no innuendo present: ‘no jury with its feet on . .
Cited – Shah and Another v Standard Chartered Bank CA 2-Apr-1998
The plaintiffs appealed against refusal of orders striking out the defences of justification to their libel action.
Held: The words complained of bore an accusation of money laundering. A plea of justification based upon a reasonable belief in . .
Cited – McAlpine v Bercow QBD 24-May-2013
The claimant alleged defamation in a tweet by the defendant. The court now decided as a preliminary point, the meaning of the words: ‘Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*’. There had been other but widespread (mistaken) allegations against . .
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. . .
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. . .
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 . .
Cited – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.198168

Judgment as to meaning of certain of the phrases founding the defamation action.
Held: The articles were held to have meant (inter alia) that Mr Lachaux had been violent and abusive towards his wife during their marriage, had hidden Louis’ passport to stop her removing him from the UAE, had made use of UAE law and the UAE courts to deprive her of custody and contact with her son, had callously and without justification taken Louis out of her possession, and then falsely accused her of abducting him.

Judges:

Sir David Eady

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 620 (QB), [2015] CN 469

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 1-Apr-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by the three defendant news organisations. The defendants now sought trial of certain preliminary issues, and particularly whether the claimant had suffered any serious harm to his reputation.
Held: The court . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Others QBD 29-Jun-2015
Orders allowing extension of time for service of the Particulars of Claim. . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 30-Jul-2015
The claimant brought defamation claims as to articles making allegations said to imply that the claimant had mistreated his wife. The defendant contended that, while inferences might sometimes suffice, s.1 (1) nevertheless required a claimant to . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd/ Evening Standard Ltd QBD 18-Dec-2015
In each of these libel actions the Claimant applied for an order for the delivery up of documents which he claimed were the subject of legal professional privilege but which have been obtained by the Defendants from his former wife, Ms Lachaux, in . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (1) CA 12-Sep-2017
Defamation – presumption of damage after 2013 Act
The claimant said that the defendant had published defamatory statements which were part of a campaign of defamation brought by his former wife. The court now considered the requirement for substantiality in the 2013 Act.
Held: The defendant’s . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2) CA 12-Sep-2017
The court was asked whether the defendants and their solicitors may retain and make use of information contained in documents which are said by the claimant to be confidential and the subject of legal professional privilege . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: Section 1 of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.544230

A company in business in Prague had sent a document defamatory of the claimants with whom they were in a business relationship to the British Ambassador in Prague and asked for his assistance.
Held: On the relevance of ‘common interest ‘ to the defence of qualified privilege ‘Counsel for the defendants drew an analogy with the recent case of Kearns v General Counsel of the Bar . . That too was primarily a common interest case, but it turned upon the well-established relationship between the Bar Council and members of the Bar . . The issue was not fact sensitive therefore, in the sense that it would become necessary to investigate the particular circumstances surrounding each individual publication. Here, by contrast, the common and corresponding interest contended for is not, so to speak, ‘off the peg’ and is being tailored to the individual circumstances and people involved. There is more room, therefore, for factual inquiry at trial before it can be finally determined that the common interest alleged would be classified as ‘legitimate’ by the law of defamation.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2002] All ER (D) 314, [2002] EWHC 2501 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Downtex v Flatley CA 2-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages for defamation and breach of contract. The claimants had purchased a business from the defendant, which contract included a clause requiring the defendant to say nothing damaging about the business. The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.186631

Nicklin J noted that: ‘In mass media cases (where it is unlikely that the readers can be identified) it is almost impossible to advance evidence that publishees did not believe the allegation made against the claimant.’

Judges:

Nicklin J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2873 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 2013 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601097

Directors of a London firm of stockbrokers brought libel proceedings against two Swiss bankers.
Held: The absolute immunity which is given to both witnesses and potential witnesses extends to all those taking part in a criminal investigation which is being conducted looking forward to a prosecution. The general principle was that the use of documents disclosed for the purpose of legal proceedings should remain under the control of the court. The implied undertaking could always be varied in an appropriate case but the court should retain control. It was a necessary tool for preventing its process from being abused. The undertaking applied to material disclosed by the prosecution as intended to be used at the trial as well as to unused material and that it survived the use of the document in open court.

Judges:

Brooke J

Citations:

Unreported, 19 June 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Mahon and Another v Rahn and Others (1) CA 12-Jun-1997
Two company directors sued Swiss bankers who had responded to enquiries from the police in London. The charges which followed had been dismissed, and the directors sued in defamation, seeking to rely upon the materials sent to the police.
Cited – Ex parte Coventry Newspapers Ltd CA 1993
Documents had been disclosed by the Police Complaints Authority under court order for an appeal against conviction. They related to an investigation of the conduct of police officers who had given evidence against the appellant. The newspaper, now . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Mahon and Another v Rahn and Others (1) CA 12-Jun-1997
Two company directors sued Swiss bankers who had responded to enquiries from the police in London. The charges which followed had been dismissed, and the directors sued in defamation, seeking to rely upon the materials sent to the police.
Cited – Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
See Also – Mahon v Rahn and others (No 2) CA 8-Nov-1999
Brooke LJ attempted to draw a distinction between simple cases. . .
See Also – Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2) CA 8-Jun-2000
The defendant’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.211378

Claim for libel and malicious falsehood.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 2797 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.655156

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1501 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.638451

The defendant sought a stay of the forthcoming defamation trial, saying the action was an abuse of process.
Held: The application was refused.

Judges:

Sharpe J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2710 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.425806

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3239 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Lait MP v Evening Standard Ltd QBD 25-Mar-2010
The claimant MP alleged defamation. The defendant applied to have certain alleged meanings in the article struck out. The article related to the alleged relation to repayment of expenses claims in her capacity as an MP.
Held: Though certain . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lait v Evening Standard Ltd CA 28-Jul-2011
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in an article regarding her expenses claims as an MP. She appealed against summary judgment in favour of the defence in their pleaded defence of honest comment.
Held: Laws LJ said: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.427039

Citations:

[1837] EngR 825, (1837) 7 Ad and E 223, (1837) 112 ER 455

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.313942

The defendant asserted that the claimant had no capacity (by way of identity) to allow it to sue in defamation.
Held: North London Central Mosque Trust lacks capacity. It is not an entity capable of suing for libel: ‘Parliament has not conferred capacity to sue on this claimant or on charitable trusts in general. It is not a human being or a group of human beings, nor is it a corporation or quasi-corporation in the sense that it has been given some of the attributes of a corporation,’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3311 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants HL 22-Jul-1901
A trade union, an unincorporated association, could be sued in its own name despite the absence of any statutory provision permitting it. Lord Lindley said that the problem of how to adapt legal proceedings to unincorporated societies consisting of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581604

On the defence of common interest such as to establish qualified privilege: ‘The defendant cannot create a privilege for himself because of honest belief on his part that the person to whom he made a slanderous communication had an interest or duty in respect of the subject matter of such statement’ and ‘The material part of the cause of action in libel is not the writing, but the publication of the libel’

Judges:

Lord Esher MR

Citations:

[1894] 2 QB 54

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Downtex v Flatley CA 2-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages for defamation and breach of contract. The claimants had purchased a business from the defendant, which contract included a clause requiring the defendant to say nothing damaging about the business. The defendant . .
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 . .
Cited – Bata v Bata CA 1948
The defendant wrote a circular letter in Zurich libelling the plaintiff, who was chairman of a company in England, but who personally lived in Ontario, Canada. That circular letter was addressed to the deputy manager and managing director of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.186632

The Claimant contends that she has been defamed in an apology, published by the Defendant in the online and print editions of The Daily Telegraph. She had written the story which the paper apologised for.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 2359 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.653391

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.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. When investigating suspected misbehaviour by police officers, a journalist can go no further than is allowed with the Reynolds privilege.
Lord Neuberger MR said: ‘a decision in a case such as this does not involve the exercise of a discretion and cannot therefore be approached as the court suggested in Galloway.’ It is rather a judgment about whether Reynolds privilege applies.
The reportage defence needs to be treated restrictively: ‘The fact that an unidentified insider has given specific information which, if true, may incriminate a claimant, will very rarely be justifiable reportage.’
In this case the article had included details of the allegations underlying the investigation without carrying out any independent checking of their worth, and therefore Reynolds privilege could not attach.
The continued publication of the article on the web-site even after the officer had been cleared was not justifiable.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Moore-Bick, Moses LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 804, [2010] WLR (D) 187, [2010] EMLR 26, [2011] 1 WLR 153

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 2-Oct-2009
The defendant had published a story in its newspaper. At that time it attracted Reynolds qualified privilege. After the circumstances changed, the paper offered an updating item. That offer was rejected as inadequate.
Held: The qualified . .
Cited – Cox v Feeney 1863
In an action for libel, consisting of a publication in a newspaper of a report of an inspector of charities under the Charitable Trusts Act, containing a letter, written some years before, reflecting on the plaintiff in hs management of a college: . .
Cited – Purcell v Sowler CA 1877
A Manchester newspaper reported a public meeting of poor-law guardians, in which a medical officer was said to have neglected to attend pauper patients when sent for.
Held: Publication was not privileged. The Court looked beyond the . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Cited – Adam v Ward HL 1917
The plaintiff, Major Adam MP, falsely attacked General Scobell in a speech in the House of Commons, thus bringing his charge into the national arena. The Army Council investigated the charge, rejected it and directed their secretary, Sir E Ward, the . .
Cited – Pfeifer v Austria ECHR 15-Nov-2007
The right to protect one’s honour and reputation is to be treated as falling within the protection of Article 8: ‘a person’s reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or her personal identity . .
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 . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – Cumpana Et Mazare -c- Roumanie ECHR 10-Jun-2003
Reputation can be a Convention right within Article 8. . .
Cited – Bonnick v Morris, The Gleaner Company Ltd and Allen PC 17-Jun-2002
(Jamaica) The appellant sought damages from the respondent journalists in defamation. They had claimed qualified privilege. The words alleged to be defamatory were ambiguous.
Held: The publishers were protected by Reynolds privilege. The court . .
Cited – de Buse v McCarthy CA 1942
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 . .
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 . .
Doiubted – George Galloway MP v The Telegraph Group Ltd CA 25-Jan-2006
The defendant appealed agaiunst a finding that it had defamed the claimant by repeating the contents of papers found after the invasion of Iraq which made claims against the claimant. The paper had not sought to justify the claims, relying on . .
Cited – Al-Fagih v H H Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd CA 1-Nov-2001
The media’s right to freedom of expression, particularly in the field of political discussion ‘is of a higher order’ than ‘the right of an individual to his good reputation.’ The majority upheld an appeal against a trial judge’s ruling that the . .
Cited – Clift v Slough Borough Council and Another QBD 6-Jul-2009
The claimant sought damages for defamation. The council had decided that she had threatened a member of staff and notified various people, and entered her name on a violent persons register. She alleged malice, the council pleaded justification and . .
Cited – Roberts and Another v Gable and others CA 12-Jul-2007
The claimants appealed a finding of qualified privilege in their claim of defamation by the defendant author and magazine which was said to have accused them of theft and threats of violence against other members of the BNP.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .
Cited – A v Norway ECHR 9-Apr-2009
A complained that the Norwegian court had failed to protect his reputation when he lost his action for defamation. He had been released after serving his time for murder and other very serious assaults, but when arrested on suspicion of murder and . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 And 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2009
The applicant alleged that the rule under United Kingdom law whereby each time material is downloaded from the Internet a new cause of action in libel proceedings accrued (‘the Internet publication rule’) constituted an unjustifiable and . .
See Also – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant police officer complained of an alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant. The defendant wished to obtain information from the IPCC to show that they were investigating the matter as a credible issue. The court . .

Cited by:

Cited – JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 31-Jan-2011
Principles on Request for Anonymity Order
The defendant appealed against an order granting the anonymisation of the proceeedings.
Held: The critical question is whether there is sufficient general public interest in publishing a report of proceedings which identifies a party by name, . .
Appeal from – 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: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.420689

Application for permission to appeal against summary dismissal of defamation action.

Judges:

Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1376

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.201229