Category: Defamation

S v Suren and Another: QBD 10 Sep 2004

Tugendhat J
[2004] EWHC 1981 (QB)
Bailii
Defamation Act 1952, Civil Evidence Act 1968 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McManus and others v Beckham CA 4-Jul-2002
The claimant sought damages from the defendant who was a pop star, and had vociferously, publicly, and wrongly accused the claimant of selling pictures with fake autographs of her husband. The defendant obtained an order striking out the claim on . .
Cited – Vint v Hudspith 1885
In the Chancery division, and where judgment has been entered in default, the proper challenge is by request to the judge to set aside his judgment. Though an appeal to the Court of Appeal is possible, such appeals will be discouraged. . .
Cited – Goode v Martin CA 13-Dec-2001
The claimant had sought to amend her claim for damages for personal injuries. The application had been rejected as introducing a claim not based on the same facts. She had suffered severe head injuries, and had no memory of the accident. She served . .
Cited – WEA Records v Visions Channel 4 Ltd CA 1983
Sir John Donaldson MR explained that: ‘In terms of jurisdiction, there can be no doubt that this court can hear an appeal from an order made by the High Court upon an ex parte application. This jurisdiction is conferred by section 16 (1) of the . .
Cited – Rowan Companies Inc (a Body Corporate) and others v Lambert Eggink Offshore Transport Consultants of (a Body Corporate) and others CA 30-Jul-1998
The Plaintiffs had entered into a towage contract with Lambert Eggink Offshore Transport Consultants. Those Defendants are a body known as a VOF under Dutch Law, being a form of partnership under that law. It is a body that has no separate legal . .
Cited – Welsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd CA 4-Apr-1994
A new claim was not deemed to have been made until the pleading was actually amended for limitation purposes, and should not be allowed after the limitation period had expired. The date of the application for leave to amend was not at issue. The . .
Cited – Thompson v Brown Construction (Ebbw Vale) Ltd HL 1981
The plaintiff’s solicitors, out of negligence, failed to issue a writ until one month after the limitation period had expired. The application to extend the period was rejected at first instance since he had an unanswerable claim against his . .
Cited – Leicester Market Ltd v Grundy 1990
An application was made under RSC Ord. 15, r. 6(2) . .
Cited – Steedman, Clohosy, Smith, Kiernan, Newman, Creevy, Anderson v The British Broadcasting Corporation CA 23-Oct-2001
The claimants had issued defamation proceedings. The defendant said they were out of time, having begun the action more than one year after the alleged publication, but accepted that they had not been prejudiced in their defence. The court refused . .
Cited – Olakunle O Olatawura v Alexander O Abiloye CA 17-Jul-2002
The claimant challenged an order requiring him to give security for costs before proceeding. The judge had felt he was unreasonable in the way he was pursuing his claim. He appealed saying the order was made outside the scope of Part 25.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.211417

Amann v Damm: 22 May 1860

The defendant, bona fide believing that the plaintiff, who was a clerk to one M, a customer of the defendant’s. and who had been sent to the defendant’s shop bv M had while there stolen a box from an inner room, went to M., and, after telling him of his loss, intimated his suspicion of the plaintiff, saying, ‘There was no one else in the room, and he must have taken it.’ Held, that the communication was privileged by the occasion. Where slanderous words are uttered in a foreign language, the declaration should aver that the persons in whose presence they were spoken understood the language.

[1860] EngR 756, (1860) 8 CB NS 597, (1860) 144 ER 1300
Commonlii
England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.285595

Hayden and Another v Charlton: CA 7 Jul 2011

Appeal from order striking out defamation claims for failure to comply with court orders.

Pill, Toulson, Sullivan LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 791
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Hayden and Another v Charlton QBD 1-Dec-2010
Action for defamation struck out after repeated failure by claimants to comply with court orders. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.441535

Associated Newspapers Ltd v Murray: CA 15 May 2015

The newspaper had been sued in defamation, and it had been agreed that a statement would be made. The parties however differed as to the form of statement to be read out in court.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The allegation complained of is that the claimant had given a knowingly false account of her time as a single mother in which she falsely and inexcusably accused her fellow churchgoers of behaving badly towards her. This pleaded meaning is accurately and unambiguously set out in the draft statement, where, as can be seen, it is stated in terms that this is what the article alleged (defined as ‘the Allegations’). It is plain beyond sensible argument, as Mr Rushbrooke QC for the claimant submits, that anyone hearing the statement being read, or reading it could be in no doubt that this is the meaning complained of. Nor would such a notional third party be misled as to the defendant’s position. A later passage from the unilateral statement, about which the defendant does not complain, expressly records that the defendant accepts as ‘completely false and indefensible’ ‘the Allegations’ i.e. the accurately recorded pleaded meaning. The premise of the defendant’s argument on this appeal is therefore a flawed one.’

Longmore, Ryder, Sharp LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 488
Bailii
Defamation Act 1996 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Winslet v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 3-Nov-2009
The parties had compromised a defamation claim with an offer of amends, but the claimant wished to read out a statement in accordance with the rules, being unhappy with the apology offered. The defendant objected, saying that she had no entitlement . .
Appeal from – 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: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546825

Barron MP and Another v Vines: QBD 29 Apr 2015

The court considered the damages to be awarded afer a libellous television broadcast on Sky TV. The claimants were MPs for Rotherham. There had been a large scale abuse of children, and they had been accused of not responding properly to it by the defendant, a political opponent.
Held: The Court is able to give appropriate protection to political speech without distorting well-established principles about the meaning of words.

Warby J
[2015] EWHC 1161 (QB)
Bailii
Defamation Act 2013 4
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
See Also – Barron MP and Others v Collins MEP QBD 29-Apr-2015
Trial of preliminary issues in for defamation. The claimants, MPs for Rotherham areas, said that a speech by the defendant to the UKIP conference and repeated on TV contained assertions defamatory of them.
Held: The words complained of bore . .
See Also – Barron and Others v Collins MEP QBD 22-Dec-2016
The defendant MEP had had adjourned the claim against her for defamation, claiming that her actions has been as an MEP and therefore exempt from proceedings. The chair of the European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee had received and rejected her . .
See Also – Barron and Another v Vines QBD 2-Jun-2016
The court assessed damages having found that the claimant Labour MPs had been defamed by the defendant UKIP local politician. The defamations related to the alleged failures to control substantial child sex abuse in Rotherham.
Held: The . .
Cited – Monroe v Hopkins QBD 10-Mar-2017
The claimant, a transgender chef and food blogger claimed in defamation against the defendant journalist in respect of two tweets. The court now set out to decide the meanings, whether they were defamatory by nature, and whether the serious harm . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546268

Decker v Hopcraft: QBD 30 Apr 2015

The claimant, a litigant in person, was absent from the hearing of a defamation action arising from a dispute between the parties in their capacities as committee members of the Crawley Boxing Club.
Held: The court gave its reasons for refusing to vacate the hearing.

Warby J
[2015] EWHC 1170 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Barron and Others v Collins MEP QBD 22-Dec-2016
The defendant MEP had had adjourned the claim against her for defamation, claiming that her actions has been as an MEP and therefore exempt from proceedings. The chair of the European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee had received and rejected her . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546269

Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres: QBD 2002

The claimant asserted that the defendant had defamed her in a leaflet. The defendant asked the court to determine that the pamphlet did not carry a defamatory meaning.
Held: Eady J formulated the principles applicable when determining meaning: ‘The proper role for the judge when adjudicating a question of this kind is to evaluate the words complained of and to delimit the range of meanings of which the words are reasonably capable, exercising his or her own judgment in the light of the principles laid down in the authorities and without any of the former Order 18 Rule 19 overtones. If the judge decides that any pleaded meaning falls outside the permissible range, then it will be his duty to rule accordingly. In deciding whether words are capable of conveying a defamatory meaning, the court should reject those meanings which can only emerge as the produce of some strained or forced or utterly unreasonable interpretation. The purpose of the new rule is to enable the court to fix in advance the ground rules and permissible meanings, which are of cardinal importance in defamation actions, not only for the purpose of assessing the degree of injury to the claimant’s reputation but also for the purpose of evaluating any defences raised, in particular, justification and fair comment.
The court should give the article the natural and ordinary meaning which it would have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader reading the article once. Hypothetical reasonable readers should not be treated as either naive or unduly suspicious. They should be treated as being capable of reading between the lines and engaging in some loose thinking, but not as being avid for scandal. The court should avoid an over-elaborate analysis of the article, because an ordinary reader would not analyse the article as a lawyer or accountant would analyse documents or accounts. Judges should have regard to the impression the article has made upon them themselves in considering what impact it would have made on the hypothetical reasonable reader. The court should certainly not take a too literal approach to its task.’

Eady J
[2002] EWHC 829 (QB)
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres QBD 2002
The claimant asserted that the defendant had defamed her in a leaflet. The defendant asked the court to determine that the pamphlet did not carry a defamatory meaning.
Held: Eady J formulated the principles applicable when determining meaning: . .

Cited by:
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 . .
Appeal from – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 . .
See Also – Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres QBD 2002
The claimant asserted that the defendant had defamed her in a leaflet. The defendant asked the court to determine that the pamphlet did not carry a defamatory meaning.
Held: Eady J formulated the principles applicable when determining meaning: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.199362

Barron MP and Others v Collins MEP: QBD 29 Apr 2015

Trial of preliminary issues in for defamation. The claimants, MPs for Rotherham areas, said that a speech by the defendant to the UKIP conference and repeated on TV contained assertions defamatory of them.
Held: The words complained of bore three defamatory meanings about each of the claimants: (1) That they knew many of the details of the scandalous child sexual exploitation that took place in Rotherham over a period of sixteen years, in the course of which an estimated 1,400 children were raped, beaten, plied with alcohol and drugs, and threatened with violence by men of Asian origin, yet deliberately chose not to intervene but to allow the abuse to continue. I held this to be an allegation of fact. (2) That they acted in this way for motives of political correctness, political cowardice, or political selfishness. I held this to be an expression of opinion. (3) That each was thereby guilty of misconduct so grave that it was or should be criminal, as it aided and abetted the perpetrators and made the Claimants just as culpable as the perpetrators. This too I held to be an expression of opinion.

Warby J
[2015] EWHC 1125 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Barron MP and Another v Vines QBD 29-Apr-2015
The court considered the damages to be awarded afer a libellous television broadcast on Sky TV. The claimants were MPs for Rotherham. There had been a large scale abuse of children, and they had been accused of not responding properly to it by the . .

Cited by:
See Also – Barron and Others v Collins QBD 16-May-2016
The defendant MEP sought an order staying the defamation action brought against her by four MPs from the Rotherham area. She said that as an MEP she had a procedural immunity. She had informed the European Commission that she sought the protection . .
See Also – Barron and Others v Collins MEP QBD 22-Dec-2016
The defendant MEP had had adjourned the claim against her for defamation, claiming that her actions has been as an MEP and therefore exempt from proceedings. The chair of the European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee had received and rejected her . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546186

Serafin v Malkiewicz and Others: SC 3 Jun 2020

‘What order should flow from a conclusion that a trial was unfair? In logic the order has to be for a complete retrial. As Denning LJ said in Jones -v- National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55 . . ‘No cause is lost until the judge has found it so; and he cannot find it without a fair trial, nor can we affirm it’. Lord Reed PSC observed during the hearing that a judgment which results from an unfair trial is written in water. An appellate court cannot seize even on parts of it and erect legal conclusions upon them.’

Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden and Lord Kitchin
[2020] UKSC 23, [2020] 4 All ER 711, [2020] 1 WLR 2455, [2020] EMLR 24
Bailii, Bailii Summary
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Khan, Regina v CACD 21-Oct-2021
The applicant having been discharged of offences under the 1988 Act, the Court nevertheless imposed an order on him in his absence under the 1997 Act prohibiting him from contacting the complainant for a period of 10 years. He sought to appeal from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.651116

Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others: CA 21 Dec 2021

Appeal and a cross-appeal against a decision of Jay J by which he granted the claimant permission to serve five media defendants in their jurisdictions of domicile in the United States of America with proceedings for libel and limited claims for misuse of private information, but refused permission to serve a variety of other claims advanced by the claimant. The defendants’ appeal challenges the grant of permission to serve the libel claim. It raises issues about s 9 of the Defamation Act 2013, which contains a new test for jurisdiction over libel claims against those domiciled abroad. The claimant’s cross-appeal challenges the refusal to allow service of claims in data protection and malicious falsehood. It raises issues about the territorial scope of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and requires us to consider whether the Judge was right to find that the claimant’s malicious falsehood claims are untenable.

Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the Queen’S Bench Division,
Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing,
And,
Lord Justice Warby
[2021] EWCA Civ 1952
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others QBD 15-Jan-2021
Claimant’s contested application to serve-out. . .
See Also – Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others QBD 13-Apr-2021
Claim in defamation and misuse of private information. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction, Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.670640

Cruddas v Calvert and Others: CA 17 Mar 2015

Jackson, Ryder, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 171
Bailii
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, Damages

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544333

The Bussey Law Firm Pc and Another v Page: QBD 6 Mar 2015

The claimant US law firm claimed in defamation after receiving an abusive review on an internet service maintained by Google. The defendant denied responsibility for the posting which had been made through his account, and said that had he been told earlier, the posting would have been removed immediately, reducing any possible damage. No reliance was placed on publication in England and Wales.
Held: The overwhelming likelihood was that the defendant was the poster. Damages were awarded: ‘The publication was calculated to cause serious harm to the Claimants and, in particular, to Mr Bussey’s personal reputation and to his legal practice. It is likely to have been read by a significant number of searchers and, in particular, by potential clients checking them out.’ Sir David Eady assessed damages for the law firm ‘conservatively, at andpound;25,000’.

Sir David Eady
[2015] EWHC 563 (QB)
Bailii
Cited by:
Cited – Brett Wilson Llp v Person(s) Unknown, Responsible for The Operation and Publication of The Website www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com QBD 16-Sep-2015
The claimant solicitors sought remedies against the unknown publishers of the respondent website which was said to publish material defamatory of them, and to ampunt to harassment.
Held: The alleged defamatory meanings were not challenged by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543932

Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd: QBD 4 Feb 2015

The claimant MP sought damages alleging defamation by the defendant newspaper. The court heard a second case management conference as to amended particulars of claim.

Warby J
[2015] EWHC 209 (QB), [2015] 2 Costs LO 243, [2015] 1 WLR 3031, [2015] EMLR 18
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 – Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 22-Jul-2015
Pre-trial review of libel action. . .
See Also – Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 25-Nov-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant as to his conduct as an MP. The defendant having pleaded justification, the court now tried the liability issue.
Held: The claim failed. The publication had the benefit of reynolds privilege.
Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542256

Sloutsker v Romanova: QBD 21 Jan 2015

The claimant complained that the defendant libelled him in four publications: a blog post written by her on the website of the Moscow-based radio station Echo Moscow.

Warby J
[2015] EWHC 81 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Sloutsker v Romanova QBD 5-Mar-2015
The claimant sued for libel in respect of the publication in this jurisdiction of allegations of fabricating evidence, conspiracy to murder, and the bribery and corruption of the prosecutor and judges in criminal proceedings. The defendant now . .
See Also – Sloutsker v Romanova QBD 16-Jul-2015
Remedies after finding of defamation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541731

Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood: CA 4 Dec 2014

The newspaper appealed from the award of costs to the claimant who had succeeded in his claim of defamation.

Macur, Sharp LJJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd
[2014] EWCA Civ 1574
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 19-Dec-2013
The claimant policeman alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant newspaper. The defendant advanced two substantive defences, a defence of public interest (Reynolds) privilege and justification. After protracted litigation, the . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Times Newspapers Ltd and Others v Flood and Others SC 11-Apr-2017
Three newspaper publishers, having lost defamation cases, challenged the levels of costs awarded against them, saying that the levels infringed their own rights of free speech.
Held: Each of the three appeals was dismissed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539588

Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited: QBD 27 Nov 2014

[2014] EWHC 4014 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 1-Aug-2013
The defamation claimant sought relief from sanctions imposed after a failure to comply with orders requiring him to discuss budgets and budgetary assumptions.
Held: The claimant had failed to deliver the required costs budget in time, and any . .
See Also – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-Mar-2014
Application for discovery of documents held by a third party, the Police Complaints Commission) in a defamation action. . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Jun-2014
. .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Jul-2014
The claimant MP had a bad tempered altercation with police officers outside Downing Street. He sued the defendant newspaper in defamation saying that they had falsely accused him of calling te officers ‘plebs’. One officer now sued the MP saying . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Oct-2014
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant. In the second action, the policeman claimant alleged defamation by the first claimant. The court heard applications as to the admission of expert evidence, and as to the inclusion or otherwise of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539374

Ion Carstea v Romania: ECHR 28 Oct 2014

The applicant alleged that the domestic courts had failed to protect his reputation following the publication of an article in a local newspaper, which constituted a violation of his right to respect for his private life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.

Josep Casadevall, P
20531/06 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 1161
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8

Human Rights, Defamation

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538218

Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 31 Oct 2014

The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant. In the second action, the policeman claimant alleged defamation by the first claimant. The court heard applications as to the admission of expert evidence, and as to the inclusion or otherwise of parts of the witness statements.

Warby J
[2014] EWHC 3590 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 1-Aug-2013
The defamation claimant sought relief from sanctions imposed after a failure to comply with orders requiring him to discuss budgets and budgetary assumptions.
Held: The claimant had failed to deliver the required costs budget in time, and any . .
See Also – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-Mar-2014
Application for discovery of documents held by a third party, the Police Complaints Commission) in a defamation action. . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Jun-2014
. .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Jul-2014
The claimant MP had a bad tempered altercation with police officers outside Downing Street. He sued the defendant newspaper in defamation saying that they had falsely accused him of calling te officers ‘plebs’. One officer now sued the MP saying . .

Cited by:
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited QBD 27-Nov-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538209

Starr v Ward: QBD 10 Jul 2015

Trial of claims for slander and libel brought by the comedian and entertainer, Freddie Starr, against Karin Ward. They arise out of an interview which Ms Ward gave to the BBC in November 2011 and to ITV in October 2012 and the subsequent broadcasts of parts of those interviews and also out of online publications made by Ms Ward. She was now accused of making false allegations of sexual assault.
Nicol J doubted, obiter, that a Reynolds defence could avail an individual sued for a TV interview in which she publicly accused a celebrity of sexually assaulting her.

Nicol J
[2015] EWHC 1987 (QB)
Bailii
Defamation Act 1952
England and Wales
Cited by:
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: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.550081

Reed Elsevier Uk Ltd (T/A Lexisnexis) and Another v Bewry: CA 30 Oct 2014

Appeal from a decision granting the claimant’s application made pursuant to section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period in his proceedings for libel and dismissing the defendants’ application to strike out the claimant’s claim under CPR rule 3.4(2).
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded.
The judge had incorrectly assessed the reasons for the delay. The requirement on a claimant to justify an extension of the limitation period was substantial, and the claimant had failed to discharge the burden.
As to the Jameel application, the appeal succeeded: ‘There are a miniscule number of publications, it cannot be said that the claim is brought to vindicate his reputation in respect of those publications, or that any vindication would inure if he did so. Damages would be minimal. The publications complained of have long since been taken down, and the defendants have made it clear they will not be republished. There is no threat therefore of any wider publication and there can be no question of any need for an injunction.’

Lewison, Macur, Sharp LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1411, [2015] EMLR 6, [2014] WLR(D) 474, [2015] 1 WLR 2565
Bailii, WLRD
Limitation Act 1980 32A
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Bewry v Reed Elseveir (UK) Ltd and Another QBD 10-Oct-2013
The claimant had begin proceedings against the defendant legal publishers, saying that their summary of a cash had brought was defamatory. He now sought leave to extend the limitation period for his claim, and the defendants argued that, given the . .
Cited – Duke of Brunswick v Harmer QBD 2-Nov-1849
brunswick_harmerQBD1849
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 . .
Cited – Steedman, Clohosy, Smith, Kiernan, Newman, Creevy, Anderson v The British Broadcasting Corporation CA 23-Oct-2001
The claimants had issued defamation proceedings. The defendant said they were out of time, having begun the action more than one year after the alleged publication, but accepted that they had not been prejudiced in their defence. The court refused . .
Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Cited – Halford v Brooks CA 1991
The defendant had been tried for murder. The plaintiff now sought civil damages. The defendant replied that the case was brought out of time, and now appealed against the court’s extension of the time limit on the basis that the plaintiff had not . .
Cited – Coad v Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority CA 17-Jul-1996
A nurse suffered a back injury in 1983 in the course of her employment. She left the employment of the health authority in either 1990 or 1991. The judge had accepted her evidence that she did not know that she had a right of action against her . .
Cited – Brady v Norman CA 9-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to have disapplied the limitation period in his defamation claim. The claimant said that in the case of Cain, the Steedman case had not been cited, and that the decisions were incompatible, and that Cain was to be prefered.
Defamation, Limitation

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538192

Garcia v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 6 Oct 2014

The claimant, a doctor, alleged defamation by the newspaper. The paper had said that the doctor had without cause reported a patient as having drinking problems to the DVLA resuling in the suspension of his driving licence. The court was now asked as to the meaings of the published article.

Dingemans
[2014] EWHC 3137 (QB)
Bailii

Defamation

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537356

Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others: QBD 15 Jan 2021

Claimant’s contested application to serve-out.

Jay J
[2021] EWHC 56 (QB)
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others QBD 13-Apr-2021
Claim in defamation and misuse of private information. . .
Appeal From – Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others CA 21-Dec-2021
Appeal and a cross-appeal against a decision of Jay J by which he granted the claimant permission to serve five media defendants in their jurisdictions of domicile in the United States of America with proceedings for libel and limited claims for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, International, Defamation

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.657369

Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others: QBD 13 Apr 2021

Claim in defamation and misuse of private information.

Mr Justice Johnson
[2021] EWHC 873 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others QBD 15-Jan-2021
Claimant’s contested application to serve-out. . .

Cited by:
See Also – Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others CA 21-Dec-2021
Appeal and a cross-appeal against a decision of Jay J by which he granted the claimant permission to serve five media defendants in their jurisdictions of domicile in the United States of America with proceedings for libel and limited claims for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.662149

Merlin Entertainments LPC and Others v Cave: QBD 25 Sep 2014

The claimants operated amusement parks. The defendant, believing that the parks were not being opearated as safely as they should be set up web-sites attacking the claimants and some employees in intemperate terms. The claimants sought interim relief to prevent the defendant from publishing the web-sites until the case was settled. The defendant argued that this infringed his article 10 rights to freedom of speech. He wanted to justify his claims.

Elisabeth Lang J
[2014] EWHC 3036 (QB)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 10
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bonnard v Perryman QBD 1891
The libel in issue was a very damaging one. Unless it could be justified at the trial it was one in which a jury would give the plaintiff ‘very serious damages’. The court was asked to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain publication.
Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.537030

Hayden and Another v Charlton: QBD 1 Dec 2010

Action for defamation struck out after repeated failure by claimants to comply with court orders.

Sharp DBE J
[2010] EWHC 3144 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal From – Hayden and Another v Charlton CA 7-Jul-2011
Appeal from order striking out defamation claims for failure to comply with court orders. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.426915

Steel and Morris v McDonald’s Corporation and Mcdonald’s Restaurants Ltd: CA 31 Mar 1999

The appellants had lost a substantial defamation claim against them brought by the respondents. They appealed.

[1999] EWCA Civ 1144
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Steel and Morris v McDonald’s Corporation and Mcdonald’s Restaurants Ltd CA 30-Apr-1999
The respondents had achieved a substantial damages award against the appellants. The appellants said they had achieved success on two points and sought an order in their favour for the costs of those elements.
Held: ‘The appellants have no . .
See Also – McDonald’s Corporation v Steel and Another CA 2-Dec-1998
The appellants sought to appeal against a substantial defamation judgement against them. They had failed to produce the appropriate notices of appeal and skeleton arguments. . .

Cited by:
See Also – Steel and Morris v McDonald’s Corporation and Mcdonald’s Restaurants Ltd CA 30-Apr-1999
The respondents had achieved a substantial damages award against the appellants. The appellants said they had achieved success on two points and sought an order in their favour for the costs of those elements.
Held: ‘The appellants have no . .
See Also – McDonald’s Corporation v Steel and Another CA 2-Dec-1998
The appellants sought to appeal against a substantial defamation judgement against them. They had failed to produce the appropriate notices of appeal and skeleton arguments. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.146059

Bottomley v F W Woolworth: 1932

The court examined the liability in defamation of distributors of a magazine, ‘The detective story magazine’ containing the article ‘Swindlers and Scoundrels. Horatio Bottomley, Editor and Embezzler.’ Woolworth was absolved from liability for publication of the defamatory attack in a consignment of remaindered American magazines that it distributed; the company did not check every magazine for defamatory content, there was nothing in the nature of the individual magazine that should have led it to suppose that the magazine contained a libel and it had not been negligent in failing to carry out a periodical examination of specimen magazines.

(1932) 48 TLR 521
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited QBD 26-Mar-1999
An Internet Service Provider who was re-distributing Usenet postings it had received, to its users in general, remained a publisher at common law, even though he was not such within the definitions of the Act, and it was therefore liable in . .
Cited – Tamiz v Google Inc CA 14-Feb-2013
The respondent hosted a blogs platform. One of its user’s blogs was said by the appellant to have been defamatory. On discovery the material had been removed quickly. The claimant now appealed against his claim being struck out. He argued as to: (1) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.194311

Clark v Molyneux: 1877

The test of malice in a defence of qualified privilege is ‘has it been proved that the defendant did not honestly believe that what he said was true, that is, was he either aware that it was not true or indifferent to its truth or falsity.’

Brett LJ
(1877) 3 QBD 237
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: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.194524

Fraser v Evans: CA 1969

The law of confidence is based on the moral principles of loyalty and fair dealing. An injunction was sought to restrain an intended publication: ‘The court will not restrain the publication of an article, even though it is defamatory, when the defendant says he intends to justify it or to make fair comment on a matter of public interest. That has been established for many years ever since Bonnard v. Perryman. The reason sometimes given is that the defences of justification and fair comment are for the jury, which is the constitutional tribunal, and not for a judge. But a better reason is the importance in the public interest that the truth should out. There is no wrong done if it is true, or if [the alleged libel] is fair comment on a matter of public interest. The court will not prejudice the issue by granting an injunction in advance of publication.’ and iniquity] is merely an instance of just cause or excuse for breaking confidence.’

Lord Denning MR
[1969] 1 QB 349, [1969] 1 All ER 8, [1968] 3 WLR 1172
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bonnard v Perryman CA 2-Jan-1891
Although the courts possessed a jurisdiction, ‘in all but exceptional cases’, they should not issue an interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication of a libel which the defence sought to justify except where it was clear that that defence . .

Cited by:
Cited – Douglas etc v Hello! Ltd etc ChD 11-Apr-2003
The claimants were to be married. They sold the rights to publish photographs of their wedding, but various of the defendants took and published unauthorised pictures.
Held: The claimants had gone to lengths to ensure the commercial value of . .
Cited – Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
Cited – Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland, News Group Newspapers Ltd, News International Ltd, Murrell CA 10-Feb-2000
The court considered a dispute about ownership and confidence in and copyright of of video tapes taken by Princess Diana before her death.
Held: The courts have an inherent discretion to refuse to enforce of copyright. When assessing whether . .
Cited – Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans CA 1985
Lion Laboratories manufactured and marketed the Lion Intoximeter which was used by the police for measuring blood alcohol levels of motorists. Two ex-employees approached the Press with four documents taken from Lion. The documents indicated that . .
Cited – McKennitt and others v Ash and Another QBD 21-Dec-2005
The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Media

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.181404

McKenna v MGN Ltd: QBD 28 Jul 2006

The claimant hypnotherapist said that the defendant had through its newspaper defamed him by accusing him of claiming a bogus PhD.

The Hon Mr Justice Eady
[2006] EWHC 1996 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – McKenna v MGN Ltd QBD 16-Jul-2007
Eady J considered the consequences in costs of a claimant’s assertion of malice in a failed defamation case: ‘There are numerous examples of libel actions in which the fact that malice has been pleaded causes delay and increased cost out of all . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.244010

Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 8 Apr 2005

Eady J
[2005] EWHC 557 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Nov-2003
A policemen sued in defamation. The newspaper pleaded Reynolds qualified privilege.
Held: The plea was struck out. There has developed tendency of defendants to plead qualified privilege since the Reynolds decision in ‘rather waffly . .
Cited – Chase v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Dec-2002
The defendant appealed against a striking out of part of its defence to the claim of defamation, pleading justification.
Held: The Human Rights Convention had not itself changed the conditions for a plea of justification based upon reasonable . .

Cited by:
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Mar-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation, saying that the defendant newspaper (Daily Mail) had implied abuse of his friendship with a Police Commissioner to obtain contracts. The defendant denied any meaning defamatory of the claimant.
Held: . .
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Nov-2011
. .
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2012
Judgment after trial on defamation case
Mrs Justice Sharp considered the use of hearsay evidence admitted under section 4 of the 1995 Act: ‘As the authors of Phipson on Evidence, 17th edition, say at paragraph 29-15 ‘the [Civil Evidence] Act is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.224554

Russell v Stubbs Limited: HL 3 Apr 1913

The plaintiff said that the defendants, publishers of a trade magazine providing inter alia credit references, had slandered it. The defendants appealed against an order requiring it to provide details of others to whom the slander had been published. The parties also disputed the meanings claimed.
Held: Lord Kinnear said: ‘The law is perfectly well settled. Before a question of libel or slander is submitted to a jury the Court must be satisfied that the words complained of are capable of the defamatory meaning ascribed to them. That is a matter of law for the Court. If they are so, and also of a harmless meaning, it is a question of fact for a jury which meaning they did convey in the particular case.’ and ‘In . . applying this doctrine [in Capital and Counties Bank] . . to the practice of Scotland, it is necessary to substitute for the words ‘facts properly in evidence’ the words ‘properly averred on record’. This is because in Scottish practice the question of libel or no libel, so far as it is a question for the Court only, is not left to be raised at the trial, but must be decided at the stage at which the interlocutor now under review [approving issues] has been pronounced.’
Lord Shaw of Dunfermline said: ‘I am of opinion that this innuendo imports into the erroneous entry more than it can reasonably bear. For I think the test in these cases is this:- Is the meaning sought to be attributed to the language alleged to be libellous one which is a reasonable, natural or necessary interpretation of its terms? It is productive, in my humble judgment, of much error and mischief to make the test simply whether some people would put such and such a meaning upon the words, however strained or unlikely that construction may be. . . To permit . . a strained and sinister interpretation, which is thus essentially unjust, to form a ground for reparation, would be, in truth, to grant reparation for a wrong which had never been committed.’
Lord Loreburn LC said that the question was one of discretion ‘for it is undoubted that such a discovery can in some cases be allowed’ and ‘This is a case in which a specific libel is alleged – in which the matter that is arrived at by discovery is wholly in the knowledge of the defendants. There is a prima facie case of the publication of the libel complained of by the defendants. A probability, from the nature of the business carried on by the defendants, that the statements would be made or sent to all who asked for them if they were subscribers, is established in fact by the circumstance that the defendants did make the same communication to the plaintiffs’ solicitors when they asked for it. Under these circumstances I think, as I have said, that this is a case in which the discretion used by the Court of Appeal was perfectly sound, and it seems to me that I ought to say so.’

Lord Kinnear, Lord Loreburn, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline
, [1913] UKLawRpAC 13, (1913) AC 386
Commomlii
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – The Capital and Counties Bank Limited v George Henty and Sons HL 1882
The defendant wrote to their customers saying ‘Henty and Sons hereby give notice that they will not receive in payment cheques drawn on any of the branches of the Capital and Counties Bank.’ The contents of the circular became known and there was a . .
Appeal from – Russell v Stubbs Ltd CA 1912
The defendants published ‘Stubbs’ Weekly Gazette’ providing credit reports on persons engaged in trade to their subscribers. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant had published a report as to the plaintiff’s financial position to a named person . .

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 . .
Distinguished – Barham v Lord Huntingfield CA 1913
The plaintiff pleaded that on a day at the end of 1910 or early in 1911 the defendant published specified defamatory words to Le Grys and further during the years 1910, 1911 and 1912 the defendant published similar words. The slander imputed immoral . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.236347

Hannon and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another: ChD 16 May 2014

The claimants alleged infringement of their privacy, saying that the defendant newspaper had purchased private information from police officers emplyed by the second defendant, and published them. The defendants now applied for the claims to be struck out, saying that they should have been brought in defamation, and were accordingly time barred, that the action was an abuse of process.
Held: The action was one in a developing area of law, and the defendants would have to meet not only the usual high standards required to establish abuse, but there are clear requirements of additional caution in such an area. The application to dismiss failed.

Mann J
[2014] EWHC 1580 (Ch), [2015] EMLR 1
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bonnard v Perryman CA 2-Jan-1891
Although the courts possessed a jurisdiction, ‘in all but exceptional cases’, they should not issue an interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication of a libel which the defence sought to justify except where it was clear that that defence . .
Cited – Woodward v Hutchins CA 1977
An injunction was sought to restrain publication of confidential information about a well-known pop group, starring Tom Jones and Engelbert Humperdinck. As the group’s press agent, the defendant’s role had been to see that the group received . .
Cited – Khashoggi v Smith CA 15-Jan-1980
The plaintiff attempted to prevent a housekeeper from disclosing allegedly confidential information acquired during her employment.
Held: Sir David Cairns said: ‘But when it is apprehended that what a former employee has disclosed, or is about . .
Cited – Foaminol Laboratories Ltd v British Artide Plastics Ltd 1941
There is no justification for artificially excising from the damages recoverable for breach of contract that part of the financial loss which might or might not be the subject of a successful claim in defamation. A claim for mere loss of reputation . .
Cited – Lonhro Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5) CA 6-Oct-1993
The plaintiff sought to amend a conspiracy claim, based on arrangements to publish defamatory statements, by adding a claim for damage to reputation and feelings.
Held: Such a claim could not be made in conspiracy. A Plaintiff’s motives in . .
Cited – Tillery Valley Foods v Channel Four Television, Shine Limited ChD 18-May-2004
The claimant sought an injunction to restrain the defendants broadcasting a film, claiming that it contained confidential material. A journalist working undercover sought to reveal what he said were unhealthy practices in the claimant’s meat . .
Cited – Dixon v Clement Jones Solicitors (A Firm) CA 8-Jul-2004
The defendant firm had negligently allowed a claim for damages against a firm of accountants to become statute barred. The defendants said the claim was of no or little value, since the claimant would have proceeded anyway.
Held: The court had . .
Cited – Ash and Another v McKennitt and others CA 14-Dec-2006
The claimant was a celebrated Canadian folk musician. The defendant, a former friend, published a story of their close friendship. The claimant said the relationship had been private, and publication infringed her privacy rights, and she obtained an . .
Cited – Terry (previously LNS) v Persons Unknown QBD 29-Jan-2010
The claimant (then known as LNS) had obtained an injunction to restrain publication of private materials.
Held: There was insufficient material to found an action in confidence or privacy. An applicant was unlikely to succeed either at an . .
Cited – Bell-Booth Group Ltd v Attorney General 1989
There were alternative cases put in defamation and negligence.
Held: negligence could not operate in that sort of case. . .
Cited – Lonrho Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5) CA 27-Jul-1993
Defamatory statements causing pecuniary loss may give rise to an action in tort only. The boundaries set by the tort of defamation are not to be side-stepped by allowing a claim in contract that would not succeed in defamation. A claimant cannot, by . .
Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
mosley_newsgroupQBD2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
Cited – In re Kavanagh KBD 1949
Before her bankruptcy the bankrupt had sued her former solicitor for breach of confidence. The claim was pending at the date of her bankruptcy but later settled on terms which involved the defendant paying damages. The bankrupt claimed that the . .
Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Cited – In re Guardian News and Media Ltd and Others; HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
Proceedings had been brought to challenge the validity of Orders in Council which had frozen the assets of the claimants in those proceedings. Ancillary orders were made and confirmed requiring them not to be identified. As the cases came to the . .
Cited – Axel Springer Ag v Germany ECHR 7-Feb-2012
ECHR Grand Chamber – A German newspaper had published a story or stories about the arrest and conviction of a well-known TV actor, together with photographs, and various restraining-type orders had been issued by . .

Cited by:
Cited – Richard v The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another ChD 18-Jul-2018
Police suspect has outweighable Art 8 rights
Police (the second defendant) had searched the claimant’s home in his absence in the course of investigating allegations of historic sexual assault. The raid was filmed and broadcast widely by the first defendant. No charges were brought against the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Defamation

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525499

Calvert and Others v Cruddas: CA 16 Apr 2014

Renewed application for leave to appeal against damages award in defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant newspaper had published critical articles, derived from recordings made by undercover reporters, and pleaded justification.
Held: The case contained unusal aspects, and leave was given.

Maurice Kay, Laws LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 476
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Cruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 1-May-2013
Application for leave to amend particulars of claim. . .
See Also – Cruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 5-Jun-2013
. .
See Also – 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. . .
See Also – Cruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 26-Jun-2013
. .
Cited – Cruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 31-Jul-2013
Judgment on the second stage of the trial of a claim for libel and malicious falsehood.
Held: Tugendhat J adopted the meaning ‘more likely than not to cause pecuniary damage’ for ‘calculated to’. . .

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 December 2021; Ref: scu.523825

Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 27 Mar 2014

Application for discovery of documents held by a third party, the Police Complaints Commission) in a defamation action.

[2014] EWHC 879 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 1-Aug-2013
The defamation claimant sought relief from sanctions imposed after a failure to comply with orders requiring him to discuss budgets and budgetary assumptions.
Held: The claimant had failed to deliver the required costs budget in time, and any . .
See Also – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .

Cited by:
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Jun-2014
. .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Jul-2014
The claimant MP had a bad tempered altercation with police officers outside Downing Street. He sued the defendant newspaper in defamation saying that they had falsely accused him of calling te officers ‘plebs’. One officer now sued the MP saying . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Oct-2014
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant. In the second action, the policeman claimant alleged defamation by the first claimant. The court heard applications as to the admission of expert evidence, and as to the inclusion or otherwise of . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited QBD 27-Nov-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523307

Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham: CA 26 Feb 2014

Appeal against strike out of claims for defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant had given evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons with material highly critical of the claimant, a member of FIFA’s executive. That evidence was protected by parliamentary priviege, but the claimant said that the defendant was responsible for later references to that evidence in the course of a review by the English Football Association. The claimant now appealed against an order striking out his claim.
Held: The appeal failed. Article 9 prohibited an examination in this action of the respondent’s assertions: ‘the issue of Article 9 protection . . cannot be concluded in favour of the speaker merely by a finding of fact . . that Article 9 would be violated by enquiry into the speaker’s state of mind outside Parliament on the ground that that would also constitute enquiry into his state of mind when he spoke within Parliament. Such a state of affairs might readily be proved in a case like Lord Abingdon, Creevey or Buchanan, as Lord Bingham suggested . . But in such cases, as Lord Bingham made plain, an identity of motive or purpose as between the speaker’s utterances within and outside Parliament will not justify Article 9 protection. It will be roundly held that the claim (against the speaker) is ‘directed solely to the extra-parliamentary republication’ . . and it is only the speaker’s state of mind on that later occasion that matters.’ and . . ‘Article 9 will not bite merely because there is a public interest, which he ought reasonably to serve, in the speaker’s repeating or referring to what he had earlier said in Parliament. The later, extra-Parliamentary occasion might be quite remote from the earlier utterance. The public interest in his repeating what he had said might be different from the whys and wherefores of the Parliamentary occasion. When speaking in Parliament, he might have no reason to apprehend that he might be required (or think himself obliged) in the public interest to repeat on a later occasion what he had said. In short the integrity of the legislature’s democratic process may not need the protection of Article 9 at all.’

Laws, Tomlinson, Rafferty LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 179, [2014] EMLR 17, [2014] 3 All ER 36, [2014] 1 QB 839, [2014] WLR(D) 98, [2014] QB 839, [2014] 2 WLR 1228
Bailii, WLRD
Bill of Rights 1689 9
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Appeal from – Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham In London Borough of Haringey QBD 1-Feb-2013
makudi_triesmanQBD2013
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 . .
Cited – Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC 27-Jun-1994
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . .
Cited – Rex v Creevey Esq MP 1813
A statement made out of Parliament is not to be protected by its absolute privilege even if what is said simply repeats what was said inside the House.
A member of the House of Commons may be convicted upon an indictment for a libel in . .
Cited – Stopforth v Goyer 1978
(High Court of Ontario) A claim was made for defamation in remarks made by the defendant about the plaintiff to media representative who were present in parliament, just after he left the Ottawa chamber at the conclusion of the question period. The . .
Cited – Hutchinson v Proxmire 26-Jun-1979
(United States Supreme Court) The petitioner had been funded by the state to carry out research on aggression in certain animals, particularly monkeys. He complained of criticism of his work decsribing it as wasteful.
Held: Efforts to . .
Cited – Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another Admn 11-Apr-2008
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act.
Held: The decision was set aside for . .
Cited – Jennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
Cited – Byrne v Deane CA 1937
A notice had been displayed on a golf club notice board. The court considered whether this constituted publication for defamation purposes.
Held: Greene LJ said: ‘Now on the substantial question of publication, publication, of course, is a . .
Cited – Seray-Wurie v The Charity Commission of England and Wales QBD 23-Apr-2008
The defendant sought an order to strike out the claimant’s allegations of defamation and other torts. The defendants claimed qualified privilege in that the statements complained of were contained in a report prepared by it in fulfilment of its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Constitutional

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521627

Clark and Another v Trip Advisor Llc: SCS 6 Feb 2014

(Outer House) The petitioners complained of reviews of their guest house business carried by the respondent web-site operators which were said to be defamatory. The petitioners sought an order from the court ordaining the respondents to disclose the names, addresses and other such information that they have as to the identity of those persons who posted the said reviews

[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 20, 2014 SLT 418, 2014 GWD 7-138
Bailii
Scotland

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521143

Delfi As v Estonia: ECHR 10 Oct 2013

[2013] ECHR 941, [2013] ECHR 1218, (2014) 58 EHRR 29
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
See Also – Delfi As v Estonia ECHR 16-Jun-2015
Article 10-1
Freedom to impart information
Award of damages against internet news portal for offensive comments posted on its site by anonymous third parties: no violation
Facts – The applicant company owned one of the largest . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Defamation, Media

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.518827

Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd: QBD 19 Dec 2013

The claimant policeman alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant newspaper. The defendant advanced two substantive defences, a defence of public interest (Reynolds) privilege and justification. After protracted litigation, the claim succeeded, and the court now considered the damages to be awarded.
Held: ‘It is possible to pursue journalism said to be in the public interest and demonstrate consideration for the subject whose reputation may suffer in the event of publication. The need for such consideration is particularly acute given the subject’s lack of redress. Once it is known that there is material which exonerates, in whole or in part the subject of the journalistic investigation, consideration should be shown for the position of the subject by publishing exculpatory material. On the facts of this case no such consideration was demonstrated by TNL’ and: ‘The award of damages, for the period 5 September 2007 to 21 October 2009, to reflect the distress, anxiety and suffering of the claimant, the damage to his reputation and the need for proper vindication is 45,000 pounds. To that figure I have awarded a further andpound;15,000 to represent the aggravation of those damages by reason of the conduct of the defendant and to serve as a deterrent to those who embark upon public interest journalism but thereafter refuse to publish material which in whole, or in part, exculpates the subject of the investigation. Accordingly, the claimant’s award of damages is andpound;60,000.’

Nicola Davies DBE J
[2013] EWHC 4075 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At Supreme Court – 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 . .
See Also – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 25-Jul-2013
. .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood CA 4-Dec-2014
The newspaper appealed from the award of costs to the claimant who had succeeded in his claim of defamation. . .
At First Instance – Times Newspapers Ltd and Others v Flood and Others SC 11-Apr-2017
Three newspaper publishers, having lost defamation cases, challenged the levels of costs awarded against them, saying that the levels infringed their own rights of free speech.
Held: Each of the three appeals was dismissed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519770

Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others: QBD 20 Dec 2013

The claimant had undertaken a series of nine actions against the several defendants making allegations of discrimination and similar. They had each failed, she had been ordered to pay substantial sums in costs, and was now foamally bankrupt. In these proceedings she alleged defamation in SOSR (Some Other Substantial Reason) hearings. She had stayed other proceedings in order to ensure that these proceedings could proceed, but now appealed against a stay of these proceedings.
Held: The claim was bound to fail and was struck out.

Sir David Eady
[2013] EWHC 4118 (QB)
Bailii

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519778

Putistin v Ukraine: ECHR 21 Nov 2013

Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Alleged failure to secure the right to reputation of an applicant whose father was allegedly defamed: no violation
Facts – The applicant is the son of Mikhail Putistin, now deceased, a former Dynamo Kyiv football player who took part in a game known as the ‘Death Match’ in 1942. The game was played between a team which included professional players from Dynamo Kyiv and a team of German pilots, soldiers and technicians. Against the odds and despite allegations that the match was refereed unfairly by an SS officer, the German team was defeated 5-3. Allegedly as a result of their victory, the Dynamo Kyiv team suffered reprisals. A number of Ukrainian players were sent to a local concentration camp, where four of them were executed. In 2002 the Kyiv authorities commemorated the 60th anniversary of the match, which received wide media coverage. In 2001 the newspaper Komsomolska Pravda published an article entitled ‘The Truth about the Death Match’. It included an interview with a director and producer who discussed the possibility of making a film about the game, and a picture of the match poster from 1942. The poster contained the names of the players (including Mikhail Putistin), but these were not legible in the newspaper. The article included a quotation from the producer, who stated that there were only four players who had been executed, and that other players had ‘collaborated with the Gestapo’. Another part of the article listed the names of the players who had been executed, which did not include Mikhail Putistin. The applicant sued the newspaper and the journalist, seeking rectification of the article. He claimed that it suggested that his father had collaborated with the Gestapo. He also provided evidence that the archives held no information indicating that his father had worked for the Nazis, and documents establishing that his father had been taken to a concentration camp. The domestic courts rejected his claim, finding that the applicant had not been directly affected by the publication: his father was not directly mentioned in the text, and it was not possible to read his name on the photograph of the match poster published with the article.

Law – Article 8: The Court could accept that the reputation of a deceased member of a person’s family might, in certain circumstances, affect that person’s private life and identity, and thus come within the scope of Article 8. However, like the national courts, it found that the applicant had not been directly affected by the publication. Though a quotation in the article had suggested that some members of the Ukrainian team had collaborated with the Gestapo, none of the pictures or words referred to the applicant’s father. In order to interpret the article as claiming that the applicant’s father had collaborated with the Gestapo, it would be necessary for a reader to know that the applicant’s father’s name had appeared on the original poster of the match. The names appearing under the photograph of the poster as reproduced by the paper were illegible. The level of impact on the applicant had thus been quite remote. Moreover, the domestic courts had been obliged to have regard to the rights of the newspaper and the journalist and to balance those against the rights of the applicant. The article had informed the public of a proposed film on an historical subject. It had been neither provocative nor sensationalist. As the applicant’s Article 8 rights had been affected only marginally and in an indirect manner, the domestic courts had struck an appropriate balance between the competing rights.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

16882/03 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 1286
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited by:
Legal Summary – Putistin v Ukraine (Football ‘Death Match’) ECHR 21-Nov-2013
The applicant complained of a breach of the right to protection of his reputation as a result of the domestic courts’ refusal to rectify defamatory information about his father that had been published in the newspaper Komsomolska Pravda. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Defamation

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.519057

Belpietro v Italy: ECHR 24 Sep 2013

Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Imposition of suspended sentence on newspaper chief for publishing defamatory article: violation
Facts – At the relevant time the applicant was the director of the daily newspaper Il Giornale. In 2004 the newspaper published an article written by a senator criticising a number of members of the national legal service. Two public prosecutors, taking the view that the article infringed their honour, lodged a complaint for defamation against the senator and the applicant. The applicant was ordered to pay damages amounting to EUR 110,000 and was given a suspended sentence of four months’ imprisonment.
Law – Article 10: The applicant’s conviction had constituted interference with his right to freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by law and was capable of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or the rights of the two prosecutors.
The senator’s article had concerned a subject of general interest, namely the relationship between the prosecuting authorities and the carabinieri in Palermo in the sensitive sphere of anti-Mafia activities. As to the content of the impugned article, it had contained serious accusations against State civil servants which had not been backed up by objective evidence. In this respect the present case bore similarities to the case of Perna*. However, the latter had concerned the conviction of the article’s author, whereas the present case dealt with the conviction of the director of the newspaper which had published the article, for having omitted to exercise the necessary supervision in order to prevent the commission of offences through the medium of the press. The fact that the author of the article had been a senator did not exempt the applicant from his duty of supervision, particularly since the senator had already been finally convicted of defamation on previous occasions. It also had to be borne in mind that the director of the newspaper was responsible for the manner in which an article was presented and for the prominence given to it within the publication. In the instant case, the graphic manner of presentation had served to reinforce in readers’ minds the arguments set out in the article, including those which could be seen as an attack on the prosecutors’ professional standing. Accordingly, the applicant’s conviction had not in itself been contrary to Article 10 of the Convention.
Nevertheless, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed also had to be taken into consideration in assessing the proportionality of the interference. In the present case the applicant, in addition to being ordered to pay damages, had been sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. Although that sentence had been suspended, the fact that a prison sentence had been imposed was liable to have a significant dissuasive effect. Furthermore, there were no exceptional circumstances capable of justifying such a heavy penalty in the present case, which concerned a lack of supervision in connection with defamation. In the Perna case the penalty imposed had been merely a fine. Consequently, the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had not been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
* Perna v. Italy [GC], 48898/99, 6 May 2003, Information Note 53

43612/10 – Chamber Judgment (French text), [2013] ECHR 858, 43612/10 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 1272
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Defamation

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.518959

Putistin v Ukraine (Football ‘Death Match’): ECHR 21 Nov 2013

The applicant complained of a breach of the right to protection of his reputation as a result of the domestic courts’ refusal to rectify defamatory information about his father that had been published in the newspaper Komsomolska Pravda.

Mark Villiger, P
16882/03 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 1154
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Citing:
Legal Summary – Putistin v Ukraine ECHR 21-Nov-2013
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Alleged failure to secure the right to reputation of an applicant whose father was allegedly defamed: no violation
Facts – The applicant is the son of Mikhail Putistin, now deceased, a former . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media, Defamation

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518403

Mireskandari v Centaur Media Plc: QBD 19 Nov 2013

The Defendant sought an order that the libel action be struck out under CPR 3.4 (2)(a) and/or (b), or that summary judgment be entered against the Claimant on the whole claim, pursuant to CPR 24.2, on the ground that the claim had no real prospect of success.

Tugendhat J
[2013] EWHC 3551 (QB)
Bailii

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518335

Subotic v Knezevic: QBD 14 Oct 2013

Applications as to whether: (a) there should be an adjournment of 4 weeks to enable the Claimant’s new legal representatives to have more time to advise the Claimant, to prepare for the hearing, and to consider further re-re-amendments to the Particulars of Claim; (b) the Claimant should be permitted to re-re-amend the Particulars of Claim in the form of the draft prepared by his former legal representatives, as further amended during the hearing; and (c) the claim should be dismissed as a Jameel abuse of process.

Dingemans J
[2013] EWHC 3011 (QB)
Bailii

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516606

Wegrzynowski And Smolczewski v Poland (Legal Summary): ECHR 16 Jul 2013

ECHR Article 8
Positive obligations
Courts’ refusal to order newspaper to remove article damaging applicant’s reputation from its Internet archive: no violation
Facts – The applicants are lawyers who won a libel case against two journalists working for the daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita following the publication of an article alleging that they had made a fortune by assisting politicians in shady business deals. Holding in particular that the journalists’ allegations were largely based on gossip and hearsay and that they had failed to take the minimum steps necessary to verify the information, the domestic courts ordered them and their editor-in-chief to pay a fine to a charity and to publish an apology. These obligations were complied with.
Subsequently, after discovering that the article remained accessible on the newspaper’s website, the applicants brought fresh proceedings for an order for its removal from the site. Their claim was dismissed on the grounds that ordering removal of the article would amount to censorship and the rewriting of history. The court indicated, however, that it would have given serious consideration to a request for a footnote or link informing readers of the judgments in the original libel proceedings to be added to the website article. That judgment was upheld on appeal.
Law – Article 8: The Court declared the first applicant’s application inadmissible, as being out of time. As regards the second applicant, it noted that during the first set of civil proceedings he had failed to make claims regarding the publication of the impugned article on the Internet. The domestic courts had therefore not been able to decide that matter. Their judgment, finding that the article was in breach of the applicants’ rights, had not created a legitimate expectation that the article would be removed from the newspaper’s website. The second applicant had not advanced any arguments to justify his failure to address the issue of the article’s presence online during the first set of proceedings, especially in view of the fact that the Internet archive of Rzeczpospolita was a widely known and frequently used resource both for Polish lawyers and the general public.
As to the second set of proceedings, the second applicant had been given the opportunity to have his claims examined by a court and had enjoyed full procedural guarantees. The Court accepted that it was not the role of judicial authorities to engage in rewriting history by ordering the removal from the public domain of all traces of publications which had in the past been found, by final judicial decisions, to amount to unjustified attacks on individual reputations. Furthermore, the legitimate interest of the public in access to public Internet archives of the press was protected under Article 10. It was significant that the domestic courts had pointed out that it would be desirable to add a comment to the article on the newspaper’s website informing the public of the outcome of the first set of proceedings. This demonstrated their awareness of how important publications on the Internet could be for the effective protection of individual rights and of the importance of making full information about judicial decisions concerning a contested article available on the newspaper’s website. The second applicant had not, however, the addition of a reference to the judgments in his favour.
Taking into account all those circumstances, the respondent State had complied with its obligation to strike a balance between the rights guaranteed under Article 10 and under Article 8.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

33846/07 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 779
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
Legal Summary – Wegrzynowski And Smolczewski v Poland ECHR 16-Jul-2013
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Defamation, Media

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515144

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.’

Pollock CB
(1863) 8 LT 397
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – 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 . .
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: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.407777

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 origin and contents of the report and its relevance to the affairs of Ceylon, the due administration of the affairs of Ceylon required that the report should receive the widest publicity. Their Lordships preferred to relate their conclusions to the wider general principle which underlies the defence of privilege in all its aspects rather than to debate the question whether the case fell within some specific category.
Lord Uthwatt said: ‘Reports of judicial and parliamentary proceedings and, maybe, of some bodies which are neither judicial nor parliamentary in character, stand in a class apart by reason that the nature of their activities is treated as conclusively establishing that the public interest is forwarded by publication of reports of their proceedings. As regards reports of proceedings of other bodies, the status of those bodies taken alone is not conclusive and it is necessary to consider the subject-matter dealt with in the particular report with which the court is concerned. If it appears that it is to the public interest that a particular report should be published, privilege will attach.’

Lord Uthwatt, Sir Valentine Holmes KC
[1949] AC 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Webb v Times Publishing Co Ltd 1960
The Times newspaper published a report of the criminal trial in Switzerland of a British subject. When sued in defamation they sought to rely upon the defence of fair reporting of judicial proceedings.
Held: A blanket protection for reporting . .
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 – Blackshaw v Lord CA 1984
Claim to privilege must be precisely focused
The Daily Telegraph carried an article headed ‘Incompetence at ministry cost pounds 52 million’ recording that a number of senior civil servants had been reprimanded after investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. The plaintiff had been in . .
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 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 – Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc QBD 28-Oct-1994
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 . .
Cited – Seaga v Harper PC 30-Jan-2008
Public meeting gave no qualified privilege
(Jamaica) The appellant politician pleaded that his words about a senior policemen when spoken at a public meeting were protected from an action in slander by qualified privilege.
Held: The appeal failed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.194510

Cruddas v Calvert and Others: QBD 26 Jun 2013

[2013] EWHC 1791 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Cruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 1-May-2013
Application for leave to amend particulars of claim. . .
See Also – Cruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 5-Jun-2013
. .
See Also – 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 by:
See Also – Cruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 31-Jul-2013
Judgment on the second stage of the trial of a claim for libel and malicious falsehood.
Held: Tugendhat J adopted the meaning ‘more likely than not to cause pecuniary damage’ for ‘calculated to’. . .
See Also – Calvert and Others v Cruddas CA 16-Apr-2014
Renewed application for leave to appeal against damages award in defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant newspaper had published critical articles, derived from recordings made by undercover reporters, and pleaded justification.
Defamation

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.511093

Jon Richard Ltd v Gornall: QBD 16 May 2013

The company sought relief after the defendant a former senior employee had left but then written to customers alleging fraud by the claimant.
Held: ‘ this is as clear a case as there could possibly be that the Defendant’s denial that she published the two letters was, in the case of each, untrue and that she has no real or realistic chance of succeeding in defending the action. The Claimant seeks summary judgment and, in those circumstances, to my mind, there is no other reason why the matter should go to trial.’

Andrew Smith J
[2013] EWHC 1357 (QB)
Bailii
Defamation Act 1996 8

Employment, Defamation

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.510959

Cruddas v Calvert and Others: QBD 5 Jun 2013

[2013] EWHC 1427 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Cruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 1-May-2013
Application for leave to amend particulars of claim. . .

Cited by:
See Also – 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. . .
See Also – Cruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 26-Jun-2013
. .
See Also – Cruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 31-Jul-2013
Judgment on the second stage of the trial of a claim for libel and malicious falsehood.
Held: Tugendhat J adopted the meaning ‘more likely than not to cause pecuniary damage’ for ‘calculated to’. . .
See Also – Calvert and Others v Cruddas CA 16-Apr-2014
Renewed application for leave to appeal against damages award in defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant newspaper had published critical articles, derived from recordings made by undercover reporters, and pleaded justification.
Defamation

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.510816

Islam Expo Ltd v The Spectator (1828) Ltd and Another: QBD 30 Jul 2010

The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant in respect of its web-site. It said that the use of hyperlinks to third party sites was sufficient to identify the claimant and associate it with the allegations made.
Held: The words complained of were capable of being taken as references to the claimant. A reader clicking on the link given would be capable of making the connection between those referred to in the two articles.

Tugendhat J
[2010] EWHC 2011 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hird v Wood CA 1894
A defamatory placard was placed at the side of the road. The defendant sat by it, pointing it out to passers by, but there was no direct evidence as to who had placed the placard there.
Held: This was evidence of his publishing it. . .
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 – Crookes v Wikimedia Foundation Inc 27-Oct-2008
(Supreme Court of British Columbia) The claimant sought damages in defamation from an article published by the defendant on the internet. The court was asked whether the contents of an article to which a hyper-link was provided should be taken into . .
Cited – Ali v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-Jan-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation, saying that a combination of publications identified him.
Held: Eady J briefly discussed the effect of hyperlinks in the context of a dispute about meaning or reference in a defamation case. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.421262