The plaintiff, Major Adam MP, falsely attacked General Scobell in a speech in the House of Commons, thus bringing his charge into the national arena. The Army Council investigated the charge, rejected it and directed their secretary, Sir E Ward, the defendant, to write a letter to General Scobell, which was released to the press, vindicating him and in turn containing defamatory statements about the plaintiff.
Held: The letter was protected by qualified privilege. It was for the judge to decide whether there is any evidence of express malice fit to be left to the jury – that is, whether there is any evidence on which a reasonable man could find malice. Otherwise it is for the judge to determine whether the privilege applies. The defence of qualified privilege is based on public policy. It is usually analysed in terms of duty and interest.
Lord Dunedin said that the proper rule as respects irrelevant defamatory matter incorporated in a statement made on a privileged occasion is to treat it as one of the factors to be taken into consideration in deciding whether, in all the circumstances, an inference that the defendant was actuated by express malice can properly be drawn.
Lord Atkinson discussed the test for privilege: ‘It was not disputed, in this case on either side, that a privileged occasion is, in reference to qualified privilege, an occasion where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty, legal, social, or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is made and the person to whom it is so made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. This reciprocity is essential. Nor is it disputed that a privileged communication — a phrase often used loosely to describe a privileged occasion and vice versa — is a communication made upon an occasion which rebuts the prima facie presumption of malice arising from a false and defamatory statement prejudicial to the character of the plaintiff, and puts the latter to proof that there was malice in fact.’ and
After citingthe authorities: ‘These . . in my view clearly establish that a person making a communication on a privileged occasion is not restricted to the use of such language merely as is reasonably necessary to protect the interest or discharge the duty which is the foundation of his privilege; but that, on the contrary, he will be protected, even though his language should be violent or excessively strong, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he might have honestly and on reasonable grounds believed that what he wrote or said was true or necessary for the purpose of his vindication, though in fact it was not so.’
Lord Loreburn said: ‘I understand the law to be as follows: It is for the judge alone to rule whether or not there is an occasion of privilege, and the rule on that subject was laid down many years ago in the case of Toogood v Spyring. Subsequent decisions have illustrated the rule, but the fact that an occasion is privileged does not necessarily protect all that is said or written on that occasion. Anything that is not relevant and pertinent to the discharge of the duty or the exercise of the right or the safeguarding of the interest which creates the privilege will not be protected. To say that foreign matter will not be protected is another way of saying the same thing.’
Lord Shaw of Dunfermline said: ‘Privileged, however, as the occasion might be, it was contended that the communication went beyond the occasion and so was not protected by privilege. I humbly think that this is a more correct way of stating the proposition than is usually adopted. Privilege is a term which is applied in a two senses. There is a privileged occasion, and there is also said to be a privileged communication. The former expression is correct; the latter, strictly viewed, tends to error. What is meant with regard to a privileged occasion is that it was protected as being within the scope of the privilege attaching to the occasion. The occasion is privileged, the communication is protected.
If, accordingly, and in so far as the communication deals with matter not in any reasonable sense germane to the subject-matter of the occasion, the protection is gone: the occasion with its privilege does not reach a communication upon this foreign and totally unconnected matter.’
Lord Finlay LC said: ‘If the communication was made in pursuance of a duty or on a matter in which there was a common interest on the party making and the party receiving it, the occasion is said to be privileged. This privilege is only qualified and may be rebutted by proof of express malice.’

Lord Finlay LC, Lord Atkinson, Lord Dunedin, Lord Loreburn, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline
[1917] AC 309, [1917] AC 309, [1917] All ER 151, [1917] AC 309, [1916-17] All ER 157, 86 LJKB 849
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Downtex v Flatley CA 2-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages for defamation and breach of contract. The claimants had purchased a business from the defendant, which contract included a clause requiring the defendant to say nothing damaging about the business. The defendant . .
Cited – Meade v Pugh and Another QBD 5-Mar-2004
The claimant was a social work student. He attended a work experience placement, and challenged the report given by the defendants on that placement, saying it was discriminatory and defamatory. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The . .
Cited – Alexander v Arts Council of Wales CA 9-Apr-2001
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a . .
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 – Kingshott v Kent Newspapers Limited 1991
A question arose under the section as to whether a news piece was a fair and accurate report of proceedings at a local public enquiry. The judge had ruled that no reasonable jury properly directed could conclude that the words complained of were . .
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 – Malik v Newspost Ltd and others QBD 20-Dec-2007
The claimant, a politician, sought damages after another local politician accused him of using physical intimidation at elections. The defendant claimed a Reynolds privilege.
Held: This was not investigative journalism, and ‘There is no doubt . .
Cited – Horrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .
Cited – Clift v Slough Borough Council and Another QBD 6-Jul-2009
clift_sloughQBD09
The claimant sought damages for defamation. The council had decided that she had threatened a member of staff and notified various people, and entered her name on a violent persons register. She alleged malice, the council pleaded justification and . .
Cited – Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling and Lom CA 28-Jul-1995
The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying . .
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 – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Jul-2010
The claimant police officer complained of an article he said was defamatory in saying he was being investigated for allegations of accepting bribes. The article remained on the internet even after he was cleared. Each party appealed interim orders. . .
Cited – Clift v Slough Borough Council CA 21-Dec-2010
The court was asked how, if at all, the Human Rights Act 1998 has affected a local authority’s defence of qualified privilege in defamation cases. The claimant had been placed on the Council’s Violent Persons Register after becoming very upset and . .
Cited – Khader v Aziz and Another QBD 31-Jul-2009
The defendant sought to strike out a claim in defamation. Acting on behalf of his client the solicitor defendant was said to have called a journalist and defamed the claimant. The words were denied.
Held: Assuming (which was denied) that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.186629

On a motion for a new trial in a claim in defamation, a majority of the court held that passages in the same newspaper which were not complained of might be adduced in evidence to illustrate the meaning of the passages complained of. At the trial, both counsel had read and commented on the various passages without objection.
May CJ said: ‘I have reason to think that Mr. Justice O’Brien entertains doubts as to the legal propriety of adducing in evidence other passages in the same newspaper in order to illustrate the meaning of the passages charged to be libellous. I cannot say that I concur in those doubts. If the language be ambiguous as to the nature of the felony imputed in this particular passage, it appears to me that other passages in the same newspaper, by the same person, dealing with these matters are properly admissible in order to remove such ambiguity.’
O’Brien J dissented, saying that such passages other than those complained of were not evidence to affect the defamatory sense unless ‘directly referred to, and in that way virtually made part of the libel.’

May CJ, O’Brien J
(1885) QB Div vol XVI LR Ir 97
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Apr-2010
The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.408770

The claimant appealed against a finding that the defendant Amazon was bound to succeed in its defence under the 2002 Regulations against the claim in defamation, and that the claim should be dismissed as an abuse of process under Jameel. He had constructed a series of false adverse reviews of the claimant’s book in order to promote his own.
Held: The stream of abuse received by the defendant when his ruse was discovered was to be taken into account, and the judge found that the damage if any to the claimant’s reputation was at best marginal. For most of the remarks capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, the judge found that the defendants were: ‘overwhelmingly likely to succeed in defending it on the basis of justification and/or fair comment/honest opinion.’ He was correct. Also, and as to the need to protect the claimants from further publication, the judge held that they were secure save in the case of the fourth defendant by undertakings given. The costs incurred by the defendants had already exceeded andpound;70,000. Leave to appeal refused.

Ward, Pitchford LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 206
Bailii
Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Kaschke v Osler QBD 13-May-2010
kschke_ostlerQBD10
The claimant sued in defamation as regards the defendant’s comments in his internet blog on her historical left wing political connections. She complained that they made a connection with terrorist activities. The defendant said that the article was . .
Appeal from – McGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others QBD 30-Mar-2012
The claimant sued in defamation over postings in a review of a book on the Amazon web-site and otherwise. The court now heard interim applications.
Held: Various elements of the claim were struck out as being without value or prospect of . .

Cited by:
See Also – McGrath v Independent Print Ltd QBD 26-Jul-2013
The claimant alleged defamation in an article on the defendant’s web-site discussing a failure of his earlier defamation action. He now sought directions for a jury trial. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.472886

The defendant appealed against a ruling that the words in an article – ‘This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments’ – were statements of fact, and were not comment.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The statement was of one of his opinion, not an assertion of fact: ‘The critical question . . is whether its meaning includes one or more allegations of fact which are defamatory of the claimant, or whether the entirety of what it says about the claimant is comment (or, to adopt the term used by the European Court of Human Rights in its Article 10 jurisprudence, value-judgment).’ There were two distinct issues ‘was there any evidence to support the material claims? and secondly, if there was not, did the BCA’s personnel know this? ‘
The nature of the assertion as to the lack of evidence of efficacy was not one capable of conclusion either way and therefore was a matter of opinion: ‘the material words, however one represents or paraphrases their meaning, are in our judgment expressions of opinion. The opinion may be mistaken, but to allow the party which has been denounced on the basis of it to compel its author to prove in court what he has asserted by way of argument is to invite the court to become an Orwellian ministry of truth. ‘
‘Our decision does not seek to collapse or erode the general distinction between fact and comment: it seeks to relate the distinction to the subject-matter and context of the particular article and the dispute to which it relates. ‘ ‘Fair comment’ may have decayed to imprecision and ‘honest opinion’ now better reflects the realities.
Lord Judge said: ‘It may be said that the agreed pair of questions which the judge was asked to consider . . was based on a premise, inherent in our libel law, that a comment is as capable as an assertion of fact of being defamatory, and that what differ are the available defences; so that the first question has to be whether the words are defamatory even if they amount to no more than comment.. This case suggests that this may not always be the best approach, because the answer to the first question may stifle the answer to the second.’

Lord Judge, LCJ, Lord Neuberger MR, Sedley LJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 350, Times 23-Apr-2010, [2011] 1 WLR 133
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – British Chiropractic Association v Dr Singh QBD 7-May-2009
The claimant alleged defamation in the words ‘The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there . .
Cited – Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd CA 1968
Courts to Settle upon a single meaning if disputed
The ‘single meaning’ rule adopted in the law of defamation is in one sense highly artificial, given the range of meanings the impugned words sometimes bear. The law of defamation ‘has passed beyond redemption by the courts’. Where in a libel action . .
Cited – Underwager v Salter 1994
(United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit) Judge Easterbrook spoke of a defamation claim in a scientific dispute: ‘[Plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying ‘character assassination!’, silence those who hold divergent views, no . .
Cited – Bonnick v Morris, The Gleaner Company Ltd and Allen PC 17-Jun-2002
(Jamaica) The appellant sought damages from the respondent journalists in defamation. They had claimed qualified privilege. The words alleged to be defamatory were ambiguous.
Held: The publishers were protected by Reynolds privilege. The court . .
Leave to appeal – British Chiropractic Association v Singh CA 14-Oct-2009
The court heard a renewed application for leave to appeal against preliminary ruling in a cse of defamation brought by the Association against an author.
Held: Granted . .

Cited by:
Cited – Watkins v Woolas QBD 5-Nov-2010
The petitioner said that in the course of the election campaign, the respondent Labour candidate had used illegal practices in the form of deliberately misleading and racially inflammatory material.
Held: The claim succeeded, and the election . .
Cited – Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, an MP, complained in defamation of the defendant’s description of his rejected expenses claim regarding an assistant’s charitable donation. The paper pleaded a Reynolds defence. The claimant said that when published the defendant knew . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.406673

Defamation – presumption of damage after 2013 Act

The claimant said that the defendant had published defamatory statements which were part of a campaign of defamation brought by his former wife. The court now considered the requirement for substantiality in the 2013 Act.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed: ‘, the gravity of the imputations derived from the published statements is obvious: and a clear inference is to be drawn that serious harm to the reputation of the claimant has been caused.’
The broad intention was to ‘build on’ cases such as Thornton and Jameel and to ‘raise the bar’ for bringing a claim in defamation. Ultimately the question arising on this appeal, insofar as it relates to the meaning of s.1(1) of the 2013 Act as enacted, is as to just how far the bar has been so raised. The interpretation of the judge at first instance would leave the section having no particular effect on the law: ‘the presumption of damage in libel cases (itself no doubt founded on policy grounds as much as on empirical grounds) fits with the notion that what ordinarily causes the reputational harm is precisely the fact of the publication to others. It is at that stage that the harm to reputation will have occurred: even if there may also subsequently be (although not necessarily so) consequential damage.’
‘A presumption, whether rebuttable or irrebuttable, arises before and irrespective of consideration of the evidence. An inference arises after and in consequence of consideration of the evidence. Thus at law, in cases of libel (and some cases of slander) there is a presumption of damage: which presumption has in my view, as will be gathered, not of itself been displaced by the 2013 Act. But there is no presumption, at law, of serious damage in a libel case. Accordingly that, under s.1(1), has to be proved. The point nevertheless remains that serious reputational harm is capable of being proved by a process of inference from the seriousness of the defamatory meaning. ‘
Davis LJ summarised: ‘(1) Section 1(1) of the 2013 Act has the effect of giving statutory status to Thornton, albeit also raising the threshold from one of substantiality to one of seriousness: no less, no more but equally no more, no less. Thornton has thus itself been superseded by statute.
(2) The common law presumption as to damage in cases of libel, the common law principle that the cause of action accrues on the date of publication, the established position as to limitation and the common law objective single meaning rule are all unaffected by s.1 (1).
(3) If there is an issue as to meaning (or any related issue as to reference) that can be resolved at a meaning hearing, applying the usual objective approach in the usual way. If there is a further issue as to serious harm, then there may be cases where such issue can also appropriately be dealt with at the meaning hearing. If the meaning so assessed is evaluated as seriously defamatory it will ordinarily then be proper to draw an inference of serious reputational harm. Once that threshold is reached further evidence will then be likely to be more relevant to quantum and any continuing dispute should ordinarily be left to trial.
(4) Courts should ordinarily be slow to direct a preliminary issue, involving substantial evidence, on a dispute as to whether serious reputational harm has been caused or is likely to be caused by the published statement.
(5) A defendant disputing the existence of serious harm may in an appropriate case, if the circumstances so warrant, issue a Part 24 summary judgment application or issue a Jameel application: the Jameel jurisdiction continuing to be available after the 2013 Act as before (albeit in reality likely only relatively rarely to be appropriately used).
(6) All interlocutory process in such cases should be sought to be managed in a way that is proportionate and cost-effective and actively promotes the overriding objective.
(7) Finally, it may be that in some respects the position with regard to bodies trading for profit, under s.1(2), will be different. I say nothing about that subsection which clearly is designed to operate in a way rather different from s.1(1).’

McFarlane, Davis, Sharp LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 1334, [2018] EMLR 1, [2018] 2 WLR 387, [2018] QB 594
Bailii
Defamation Act 2013 1(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2) CA 12-Sep-2017
The court was asked whether the defendants and their solicitors may retain and make use of information contained in documents which are said by the claimant to be confidential and the subject of legal professional privilege . .
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 – 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 – 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 – Cammish v Hughes CA 12-Dec-2012
Arden LJ summarised the law as regard abuse of process claims in defamation cases, saying that while the court must provide a remedy in a case that requires one, the process of the court should not be used in a case where the need has gone away. . .
Cited – Ames and Another v The Spamhaus Project Ltd and Another QBD 27-Jan-2015
Warby J said: ‘ . . but as practitioners in this field are well aware, it is generally impractical for a claimant to seek out witnesses to say that they read the words complained of and thought the worse of the claimant’ . .
Cited – In re Harris Simons Construction Limited ChD 1989
The section gives the court jurisdiction to make an administration order if it ‘(a) is satisfied that a company is or is likely to become unable to pay its debts’ and ‘(b) considers that the making of an order . . would be likely to achieve’ one or . .
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 1-Apr-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by the three defendant news organisations. The defendants now sought trial of certain preliminary issues, and particularly whether the claimant had suffered any serious harm to his reputation.
Held: The court . .
Cited – Andre v Price QBD 11-Oct-2010
The word ‘calculated’ as used in s.2 of the 1952 Act meant ‘likely’: accepting that, in that context, that meant something less than ‘more likely than not’. . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Others QBD 29-Jun-2015
Orders allowing extension of time for service of the Particulars of Claim. . .
Appeal from – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 30-Jul-2015
The claimant brought defamation claims as to articles making allegations said to imply that the claimant had mistreated his wife. The defendant contended that, while inferences might sometimes suffice, s.1 (1) nevertheless required a claimant to . .
Cited – Grappelli v Derek Block (Holdings) Ltd CA 20-Jan-1981
Stephane Grappelli, an renowned musician, employed the defendants to promote him. They purported to arrange various concerts, but did so without his authority. When they were cancelled, they told the venue owners that they were cancelled because the . .
Part criticised – Cooke and Another v MGN Ltd and Another QBD 13-Aug-2014
The claimants made a television programme about the lives of people on benefits. The defendant published an article critical of many, and included a statement ‘Three more homes in the road where residents claim they have been portrayed as scroungers . .
Cited – Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co HL 1903
A coalmine owner claimed statutory compensation against a water undertaking which had, under its statutory authority, prevented him mining his coal over a period during which the price of coal had risen. The House was asked whether the coal should . .
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 . .
Approved – Theedom v Nourish Training (T/A Recruitment Colin Sewell) QBD 11-Dec-2015
The Court heard preliminary issues both as to the defamatory meaning of the words used and as to whether publication of those words had caused or was likely to cause serious harm pursuant to s.1 (1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: Following Cooke and . .
Still Good Law – Dingle v Associated Newspapers HL 1964
The plaintiff complained of an article written in the Daily Mail which included the reporting of a report of a Parliamentary select committee. The reporting of the select committee’s report was privileged under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. At . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 11-Mar-2015
Judgment as to meaning of certain of the phrases founding the defamation action.
Held: The articles were held to have meant (inter alia) that Mr Lachaux had been violent and abusive towards his wife during their marriage, had hidden Louis’ . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd/ Evening Standard Ltd QBD 18-Dec-2015
In each of these libel actions the Claimant applied for an order for the delivery up of documents which he claimed were the subject of legal professional privilege but which have been obtained by the Defendants from his former wife, Ms Lachaux, in . .

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 . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2) CA 12-Sep-2017
The court was asked whether the defendants and their solicitors may retain and make use of information contained in documents which are said by the claimant to be confidential and the subject of legal professional privilege . .
Appeal from – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: Section 1 of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.594990

The claimant, chair of a political party, the English Democrats, said that a blog written and published on the Internet by the defendant was defamatory and contained malicious falsehoods. The blog was said to associate the claimant’s party with racism, saying that a BNP member had joined. The court now looked at whether the article could be associated with the claimant despite his not being named.
Held: The claim failed. It was indistinguishable from Knupffer. The claimant had failed to establish that the words complained of were reasonably capable of referring to him, but that he failed implied equally nothing adverse to him.

Tugendhat J
[2012] EWHC 1946 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd HL 1971
The plaintiff claimed in defamation. The defence was that the words did not refer to the plaintiff and could not be understood to refer to him.
Held: The question as to what meaning words are capable of bearing has been described as a question . .
Cited – Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper Ltd HL 3-Apr-1944
The plaintiff complained that the defendant’s article was defamatory in implying that he was an agent of Hitler. He was representative in Great Britain of a political party of Russian emigres known as Mlado Russ or Young Russia. The total membership . .
Cited – Hector v Attorney General of Antigua PC 1990
Lord Bridge of Harwich said that: ‘In a free democratic society it is almost too obvious to need stating that those who hold office in government and who are responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism. Any attempt to . .
Cited – Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 18-Feb-1993
Local Council may not Sue in Defamation
Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which . .
Cited – Goldsmith and Another v Bhoyrul and Others QBD 20-Jun-1997
A political party is not to have the power to sue in defamation proceedings. Such a power would operate against public policy in that it would restrict democratic debate.
Buckley J said that the principle that a local authority may not sue in . .
Cited – Telnikoff v Matusevitch HL 14-Nov-1991
The court should decide on whether an article is ‘fact or comment’ purely by reference to the article itself, and not taking into account any of the earlier background coverage. It is the obligation of the relevant commentator to make clear that the . .
Cited – Horrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in 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 – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.462837

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 defamation after failing to remove a posting which it then continued to distribute after the libel had been notified to it. The claimant applied to strike out that part of the defence which denied that it was a publisher.
Held: That part of the application succeeded. Morland J said: ‘In my judgment the defendants, whenever they transmit and whenever there is transmitted from the storage of their news server a defamatory posting, publish that posting to any subscriber to their ISP who accesses the newsgroup containing that posting. Thus every time one of the defendants’ customers accesses soc.culture.thai and sees that posting defamatory of the plaintiff there is a publication to that customer’.

Morland J
Times 20-Apr-1999, Gazette 07-Jul-1999, [1999] EWHC QB 244, [1999] 4 All ER 342, [1999] Masons CLR 267, [1999] ITCLR 282, [2001] QB 201, [1999] EMLR 542, [2000] 3 WLR 1020
Bailii
Defamation Act 1996
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pullman v Hill and Co CA 1891
The plaintiff claimed publication of a defamation when the defendant was said to have dictated it to his typist.
Held: That was sufficient publication. The Court considered what would amount to publication in the law of defamation.
Lord . .
Cited – Emmens v Pottle CA 1885
A subordinate distributor, here a vendor of newspapers, can plead the common law defence to defamation, of innocent dissemination.
Held: The vendor was prima facie liable, and therefore had to demonstrate the defence to avoid liability. He . .
Cited – Day v Bream 1837
A printed handbill, contained imputations on the plaintiff clearly libellous. The plaintiff lived at Marlborough; the defendant was the porter of the coach-office at that place, and it was his business to carry out and deliver the parcels that came . .
Cited – Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library 1900
The court was asked about the liability in defamation of a circulating library who provided books to subscribers, in this case about the book on Stanley’s search for Emir Pasha in Africa. . .
Cited – Weldon v The Times Book Co Ltd 1911
The court considered the case of a bookseller who sells a book defamatory of the Plaintiff, in this case the books on Gounod. . .
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 – Sun Life Assurance -v W H Smith 1934
The defendant displayed newspaper posters announcing ‘More grave Sun Life of Canada Disclosures’ Their liability in defamation was considered. . .
Cited – 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.’ . .
Cited – Anderson v New York Telephone Co 1974
(New York) The court considered the role of a telephone company in a defamation action and said that ‘the telephone company’s role is merely passive.’ There was no liability for the phone company in having furnished a service to someone who used the . .
Cited – Cubby Inc v CompuServe Inc 1991
(United States) Leisure DJ said: ‘CompuServe develops and provides computer-related products and services, including CompuServe Information Service (‘CIS’), an on-line general information service or ‘electronic library’ that subscribers may access . .
Cited – Zeran v America Online 1997
(United States of America) Wilkinson CJ discussed the statutory protection given to Internet Service providers in the US: ‘Section 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information . .
Cited – Stratton Oakmont Inc v Prodigy Services Co 1995
(New York) The defendant computer network company held itself out as having editorial control over notes posted on its bulletin board, imposed content guidelines on its users by prescreening notes for offensive language, and permitted board leaders . .
Cited – Lunney v Prodigy Services Co 1998
(United States) Some ‘infantile practical joker’ sent an e-mail to a boy scout leader, which falsely gave the impression that it came from Alex G Lunney, ‘a prospective eagle scout’. He complained of that as well as two bulletin board messages . .

Cited by:
See Also – Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited (2) QBD 23-Apr-1999
Evidence of Reputation Admissible but Limited
The plaintiff had brought an action for damages for defamation. The defendant wished to amend its defence to include allegations that the plaintiff had courted litigation by his action.
Held: A judge assessing damages should be able see the . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate v William Frederick Ian Beggs (Opinion No 2) HCJ 21-Sep-2001
The defendant complained that an article published on the Internet was a contempt of court in that it prejudiced his trial for murder by reference inter alia to previous proceedings against him. There were others also. The court was aksed whether . .
Cited – Bunt v Tilley and others QBD 10-Mar-2006
bunt_tilleyQBD2006
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 And 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2009
The applicant alleged that the rule under United Kingdom law whereby each time material is downloaded from the Internet a new cause of action in libel proceedings accrued (‘the Internet publication rule’) constituted an unjustifiable and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.163129

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 privilege in respect of the publication. A report of the simple fact of the investigation would have had qualified privilege, but the paper had added the alleged supporting facts.
Held: The newspaper’s appeal succeeded. To claim Reynolds privilege it was for the defendant to establish both that there was a public interest in the story, and that the publisher was actingvresponsibly.
The creation of Reynolds privilege reflected a recognition that the existing law of defamation did not cater adequately for the importance of the article 10 right of freedom of expression.
The court distinguished between reportage and public interest Reynolds privilege: ‘Reportage is a special, and relatively rare, form of Reynolds privilege. It arises where it is not the content of a reported allegation that is of public interest, but the fact that the allegation has been made. It protects the publisher if he has taken proper steps to verify the making of the allegation and provided that he does not adopt it.’ As to public interest privilege: ‘where the public interest in the allegation that is reported lies in its content. In such a case the public interest in learning of the allegation lies in the fact that it is, or may be, true. It is in this situation that the responsible journalist must give consideration to the likelihood that the allegation is true. Reynolds privilege absolves the publisher from the need to justify his defamatory publication, but the privilege will normally only be earned where the publisher has taken reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the allegation is true before he publishes it.’

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Brown , Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson
[2012] UKSC 11, UKSC 2010/0166, [2012] 2 WLR 760, [2012] WLR(D) 93, [2012] EMLR 21, [2012] 4 All ER 913, [2012] 2 AC 273, [2012] HRLR 18
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
European Convention on Human Rights 10
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instance – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 2-Oct-2009
The defendant had published a story in its newspaper. At that time it attracted Reynolds qualified privilege. After the circumstances changed, the paper offered an updating item. That offer was rejected as inadequate.
Held: The qualified . .
Appeal from – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Jul-2010
The claimant police officer complained of an article he said was defamatory in saying he was being investigated for allegations of accepting bribes. The article remained on the internet even after he was cleared. Each party appealed interim orders. . .
Cited – Cowley v Pulsifer 1884
(United States – Supreme Court of Massachusetts) The court discussed the advantage nevertheless of having proceedings in public. Holmes J said: ‘The general advantage to the country in having these proceedings made public more than counterbalances . .
Cited – Stern v Piper and Others CA 21-May-1996
The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt.
Held: A defamation was not to be . .
Explained – 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 – Al-Fagih v H H Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd CA 1-Nov-2001
The media’s right to freedom of expression, particularly in the field of political discussion ‘is of a higher order’ than ‘the right of an individual to his good reputation.’ The majority upheld an appeal against a trial judge’s ruling that the . .
Cited – Roberts and Another v Gable and others CA 12-Jul-2007
The claimants appealed a finding of qualified privilege in their claim of defamation by the defendant author and magazine which was said to have accused them of theft and threats of violence against other members of the BNP.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – 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 – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .
Cited – 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 – Purcell v Sowler CA 1877
A Manchester newspaper reported a public meeting of poor-law guardians, in which a medical officer was said to have neglected to attend pauper patients when sent for.
Held: Publication was not privileged. The Court looked beyond the . .
Cited – Polanco Torres And Movilla Polanco v Spain ECHR 21-Sep-2010
(French Text) The Spanish Newspaper El Mundo published an article defamatory of the petitioners. It was based on computer disks of company accounts authenticated by an accountant dismissed by the company. The Spanish Constitutional Court had applied . .
Cited – Pfeifer v Austria ECHR 15-Nov-2007
The right to protect one’s honour and reputation is to be treated as falling within the protection of Article 8: ‘a person’s reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or her personal identity . .
Cited – de Buse v McCarthy CA 1942
The defendant town clerk sent out a notice of a meeting of the borough council to consider a committee report about the loss of petrol from one of the council’s depots. The report was attached to the notice which was posted at the town hall and in . .
Cited – Bonnick v Morris, The Gleaner Company Ltd and Allen PC 17-Jun-2002
(Jamaica) The appellant sought damages from the respondent journalists in defamation. They had claimed qualified privilege. The words alleged to be defamatory were ambiguous.
Held: The publishers were protected by Reynolds privilege. The court . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – Cumpana and Mazare v Roumanie ECHR 17-Dec-2004
(Grand Chamber) Reputation falls within the ambit of the protection afforded by article 8 . .

Cited by:
Cited – McAlpine v Bercow QBD 24-May-2013
The claimant alleged defamation in a tweet by the defendant. The court now decided as a preliminary point, the meaning of the words: ‘Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*’. There had been other but widespread (mistaken) allegations against . .
At Supreme Court – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 25-Jul-2013
. .
At Supreme Court – 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 – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.452187

Justification To be Clearly Set Out

The former practice which dictated that a defendant who wished to rely on a different meaning in support of a plea of justification or fair comment, did not have to set out in his defence the meaning on which he based his plea, was ill-founded and should not be followed.
A defendant who relies on a plea of justification must make his plea with sufficient clarity and particularity to enable the plaintiff to know what case he has to meet the meaning or meanings he seeks to justify. Whether a defence is permitted depends on the answer to three questions. First, is the defence meaning capable of arising from the publication? Second, does the defence meaning arise from a separate and distinct allegation in the publication, about which the plaintiff does not complain? Third, has the defendant provided proper particulars of fact that are capable of supporting the defence?

[1986] 1 WLR 147, [1986] 1 All ER 177
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Branson v Snowden; Branson v Gtech UK Corporation (a Body Corporate) and Rendine CA 3-Jul-1997
The respective parties had been preparing competing bids for the National Lottery. One (Branson) alleged that the other had offerered a bribe. The other responded that the allegation was a lie, and each sued the other for defamation.
Held: The . .
Cited – Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Feb-2006
The defendant sought to defend the claim for defamation by claiming fair comment. The claimant said that the relevant facts were not known to the defendant at the time of the publication.
Held: To claim facts in aid of a defence of fair . .
Cited – Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 30-Apr-2008
The court considered the availability of qualified privilege for reporting of statements made in parliament and the actionable meaning of the article, which comprised in part those statements and in part other factual material representing the . .
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant police officer complained of an alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant. The defendant wished to obtain information from the IPCC to show that they were investigating the matter as a credible issue. The court . .
Cited – Rath v Guardian News and Media Ltd and Another QBD 5-Mar-2008
The Claimant requested summary judgment on the fair comment defence to his defamation claim which was pleaded by the Defendant: ‘the Claimant’s conduct in relation to the false claims and criticisms has contributed in large part to a madness which . .
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 – Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 25-Apr-2007
Mr Curistan, a chartered accountant, prominent in Northern Ireland, contended that an article published by the defendant which was partly based on statements made in Parliament, was defamatory of him. . .
Cited – Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 29-May-2002
A libel defence of justification which was based on ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion’ must focus on conduct of claimant that gives rise to suspicion. It was not permissible to rely upon hearsay. Defendant may not plead as ‘grounds’ material which . .
Cited – Hunt v Evening Standard Ltd QBD 18-Feb-2011
The defamation claimant sought that certain paragraphs of the defence should be struck out.
Held: Several paragraphs of the defence were struck out, and others left. . .
Cited – Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Foley and Others QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to strike out defences of justification and fair comment saying that the pleadings were unsustainable for lack of clarity.
Held: The pleadings did contain obfuscation, and ‘if there is a viable defence of justification or . .
Cited – Control Risks v New English Library CA 1989
In a defamation claim, there is a parallel to be drawn between what is necessary in respect of the defence of justification and what is necessary where the defence of fair comment is raised. Where justification is pleaded, a defendant is required to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.185959

The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same newspaper was taken into account.
Held: The request for summary judgment succeeded.
Charleston did not assist the defendant since that referred only to articles on the same page. The key question is whether the various items under consideration ‘were sufficiently closely connected as to be regarded as a single publication’ – and this is so whether or not the items in the same publication are continuation pages or different items of published material relating to the same subject matter. In this case the small front page item was designed only to attract attention to the full story inside. The articles were to be read together.
The defendant argued that the words were not defamatory in that they only ridiculed the claimant. They clearly contained meanings capable of being defamatory, but those were not the one complained of which was as to the claimant’s sporting skills. In truth the real complaint was of ridicule. It remained arguable that the words in issue were defamatory of the Claimant on the grounds they are capable of suggesting ‘want of skill’, incompetence and/or on the ground that he is ridiculed by the suggestion he is absurdly bad at tennis.

Sharp DBE J
[2010] EWHC 924 (QB), [2010] EMLR 20
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Chalmers v Payne 1835
Bane and Antidote Doctrine – Take them as One
The court considered the bane and antidote doctrine in defamation. B Alderson said: ‘But the question here is, whether the matter be slanderous or not, which is a question of the Jury; who are to take the whole together and say whether the result of . .
Cited – Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 31-Mar-1995
The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual . .
Cited – Thornton v Stephen 13-Jun-1837
. .
Cited – Hedley v Barlow and Another QBD 1865
Public Interest Discussion Can Excuse Defamation
The right of free discussion on a subject of public interest excuses the pubication of defamatory matter, provided it appears to have been published not in that unfair or improper spirit – that is in the spirit of intemperate and inconsiderate . .
Cited – Bolton v O’Brien 11-Jan-1885
On a motion for a new trial in a claim in defamation, a majority of the court held that passages in the same newspaper which were not complained of might be adduced in evidence to illustrate the meaning of the passages complained of. At the trial, . .
Cited – Mccann v Scottish Media Newspapers Ltd SCS 18-Feb-1999
Three articles which appeared in one edition of a newspaper had to be read together and treated as ‘constituting a whole’ for the purposes of determining meaning, where the first ended with a cross-reference to the second, and the second ended with . .
Cited – Parmiter v Coupland And Another 1840
In an action for libel, the Judge is not bound to state to the jury, as matter of law, whether the publication complained of be a libel or not ; but the proper course is for him to define what is a libel in point of law, and to leave it to the jury . .
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 – Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association CA 1970
The court considered whether an article published in the British Medical Journal was capable of bearing a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff dentist. The article made an attack upon the plaintiff’s technique for anaesthesia.
Held: Words may . .
Cited – Hackenschmidt v Odhams Press 23-Oct-1950
. .
Cited – Edsall v Russell 18-Nov-1842
An apothecary claimed in slander. First was ‘He killed my child; it was the saline injection that did it.’ The innuendo was that the plaintiff had been guilty of feloniously killing the child by improperly and with gross ignorance and with gross and . .
Cited – Botterill v Whytehead 1879
Kelly CB said: ‘[t]o impute to an architect employed in the restoration of an ancient church that he has no experience in the work in which he has been employed is itself a libel upon the architect in the way of his profession or calling . . and . .
Cited – Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton 17-Apr-2008
Austlii (Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal) DEFAMATION – nature of- actual disparagement of the plaintiff’s reputation – reputation includes general character and standing and trade, business or . .
Cited – Dauncey v Holloway CA 1901
The court was asked whether a slander conveyed an imputation on the plaintiff in his business as a solicitor and was therefore actionable in the absence of proof of special damage.
Held: AL Smith MR said: ‘The words do not, in my opinion, . .
Cited – Berkoff v Burchill and and Times Newspapers Limited CA 31-Jul-1996
The plaintiff actor said that an article by the defendant labelling him ugly was defamatory. The defendant denied that the words were defamatory.
Held: It is for the jury to decide in what context the words complained of were used and whether . .
Cited – Hoeppner v Dunkirk Printing 1929
It was held to be defamatory to impute incompetence to a football coach: ‘While the articles complained of fail to charge the plaintiff with the commission of any crime, or to attack his moral character, the fair inference to be drawn from the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Hays Plc v Hartley QBD 17-May-2010
hays_hartleyQBD10
Mr Hartley operated a news agency, and provided to the publisher of the Sunday Mirror, MGN Ltd, allegations of racism that had been levelled at the claimant company by former employees. The allegations were reported in an article headed ”KKK . .
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 . .
See Also – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Jul-2010
The defendant having successfully had the claimant’s defamation action struck out summarily, sought costs on an indemnity basis, saying that his conduct of the matter had substantially and unnecessarily increased the costs. . .
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

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.408681

The claimant police officer sought damages from the defendants who had published a book alleging that he had been corrupt. The defendants claimed privilege under Reynolds and the 1996 Act.
Held: The defence of qualified privilege failed.

Gray J
[2006] EWHC 1756 (QB), [2007] 1 All ER 622
Bailii
Defamation Act 1996
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 12-Dec-2002
The court considered the possible affront to jurors in a defamation action when asked to decide some elements of an action, but not others. . .
Cited – George Galloway MP v The Telegraph Group Ltd CA 25-Jan-2006
The defendant appealed agaiunst a finding that it had defamed the claimant by repeating the contents of papers found after the invasion of Iraq which made claims against the claimant. The paper had not sought to justify the claims, relying on . .
See Also – Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others QBD 14-Oct-2005
The court decided the issue of what meaning the words complained of would have been understood to bear. The ordinary reader of an article may well not think in legalistic terms such as ‘strong grounds to suspect’ or ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ . .
Cited – George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2004
The claimant MP alleged defamation in articles by the defendant newspaper. They claimed to have found papers in Iraqi government offices after the invasion of Iraq which implicated the claimant. The claimant said the allegations were grossly . .
Cited – 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 – Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc CA 30-Sep-1996
. .
Cited – Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .
Cited – Al-Fagih v H H Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd CA 1-Nov-2001
The media’s right to freedom of expression, particularly in the field of political discussion ‘is of a higher order’ than ‘the right of an individual to his good reputation.’ The majority upheld an appeal against a trial judge’s ruling that the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd CA 2-Jun-2010
The claimant sold a sweetener ingredient. The defendant shop advertised its own health foods range with the label ‘no hidden nasties’ and in a situation which, the claimant said, suggested that its ingredient was a ‘nasty’, and it claimed under . .
Appeal from – Charman v Orion Group Publishing Group Ltd and others CA 10-Oct-2007
. .
Cited – Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 20-Jun-2011
The defendant sought clarification through the court as to the meanings inherent in the words complained of.
Held: The application failed. ‘I do not consider the ordinary reasonable reader would be perverse to conclude that the suspicions . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.244006

The claimants made a television programme about the lives of people on benefits. The defendant published an article critical of many, and included a statement ‘Three more homes in the road where residents claim they have been portrayed as scroungers and lowlife by Channel 4 are owned by the Midland Heart housing association. Its chief Ruth Cooke, 45, earns 179,000 pounds a year and lives in a large house in Stroud, Glos.’ The court was now asked whether these words carried defamatory meanings. The defendants argued that no serious harm would result as now required by the 2013 Act.
Held: The date from which one looks backwards (to see whether substantial harm has been caused) or forwards (to see whether substantial harm is likely to be caused) is the date on which the claim is issued. However, the claimants had brought no specific evidence that the Article had cause serious harm, and such could not be inferred, and nor was there evidence that such harm was more likely than not in the future.
Evidence was not required in every case to satisfy the ‘serious harm’ test. there is, in contrast with, say, financial damage or physical damage, no generally accepted way of ascertaining the extent of actual or likely reputational damage. Bean J said: ‘I do not accept that in every case evidence will be required to satisfy the serious harm test. Some statements are so obviously likely to cause serious harm to a person’s reputation that this likelihood can be inferred. If a national newspaper with a large circulation wrongly accuses someone of being a terrorist or a paedophile, then in either case (putting to one side for the moment the question of a prompt and prominent apology) the likelihood of serious harm to reputation is plain, even if the individual’s family and friends know the allegation to be untrue. In such a case the matter would be taken no further by requiring the claimant to incur the expense of commissioning an opinion poll survey, or to produce a selection of comments from the blogosphere which might in any event be unrepresentative of the population of ‘right thinking people’ generally. . . ‘

Bean J
[2014] EWHC 2831 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 379, [2014] EMLR 31, [2015] 1 WLR 895, [2015] 2 All ER 622
Bailii
Defamation Act 2013 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd CA 1968
Courts to Settle upon a single meaning if disputed
The ‘single meaning’ rule adopted in the law of defamation is in one sense highly artificial, given the range of meanings the impugned words sometimes bear. The law of defamation ‘has passed beyond redemption by the courts’. Where in a libel action . .
Cited – 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 – Cairns v Modi CA 31-Oct-2012
Three appeals against the levels of damages awards were heard together, and the court considered the principles to be applied.
Held: In assessing compensation following a libel, the essential question was how much loss and damage did the . .

Cited by:
Part criticised – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (1) CA 12-Sep-2017
Defamation – presumption of damage after 2013 Act
The claimant said that the defendant had published defamatory statements which were part of a campaign of defamation brought by his former wife. The court now considered the requirement for substantiality in the 2013 Act.
Held: The defendant’s . .
Cited – Theedom v Nourish Training (T/A Recruitment Colin Sewell) QBD 11-Dec-2015
The Court heard preliminary issues both as to the defamatory meaning of the words used and as to whether publication of those words had caused or was likely to cause serious harm pursuant to s.1 (1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: Following Cooke and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.535717

It is necessary for a claimant who wishes to prove malice in an alleged defamation to plead and prove facts which are more consistent with its presence than with its absence. Mawle J said: ‘it is certainly not necessary in order to enable a plaintiff to have the question of malice submitted to the jury, that the evidence should be such as necessarily leads to the conclusion that malice existed, or that it should be inconsistent with the non existence of malice; but it is necessary that the evidence should raise a probability of malice, and be more consistent with its existence than its non existence.’

Mawle J
(1851) 10 CB 583, [1851] EngR 73, (1851) 138 ER 231
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Telnikoff v Matusevitch CA 1991
The court considered the element of malice in a defamation defence: ‘If a piece of evidence is equally consistent with malice and the absence of malice, it cannot as a matter of law provide evidence on which the jury could find malice. The judge . .
Cited – McBride v The Body Shop International Plc QBD 10-Jul-2007
The claimant sought damages for libel in an internal email written by her manager, accusing her of being a compulsive liar. The email had not been disclosed save in Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the claimant sought permission to use the email . .
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 . .
Cited – Smith v ADVFN Plc and others QBD 25-Jul-2008
The claimant had brought multiple actions in defamation against anonymous posters on an online forum. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions. The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs . .
Followed – Turner v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd (MGM) HL 1950
A letter was published which criticised a film critic’s review of the week’s films.
Held: A person (including a corporation) whose character or conduct has been attacked is entitled to answer the attack, and the answer will be protected by . .
Cited – Hughes v Risbridger and Another QBD 9-Dec-2009
hughes_risbridgerQBD2009
The defendants, employees of British Airways, sought summary judgement against the claimant in his claim for defamation in several emails. They had discussed the detention of the claimant under suspicion of theft at the airport, and claimed . .
Cited – Khader v Aziz and Another QBD 31-Jul-2009
The defendant sought to strike out a claim in defamation. Acting on behalf of his client the solicitor defendant was said to have called a journalist and defamed the claimant. The words were denied.
Held: Assuming (which was denied) that the . .
Cited – Khader v Aziz and Others CA 23-Jun-2010
The claimant brought defamation proceedings after she had found and returned a valuable necklace belonging to the first respondent. The claim had been dismissed as an abuse of process.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed: ‘there is such a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.194320

A letter was published which criticised a film critic’s review of the week’s films.
Held: A person (including a corporation) whose character or conduct has been attacked is entitled to answer the attack, and the answer will be protected by qualified privilege provided that it is proportional and fairly relevant to the attack and the extent of its publication.
As to the question of extrinsic evidence it is necessary to inquire into the state of mind of the defendant at the time of the publication, and to evaluate all the circumstances surrounding its publication. This may include events before and after the publication
Fair comment must be one which could have been made by an honest person, however prejudiced he might be, and however exaggerated or obstinate his views. Grossly exaggerated language may be evidence of malice.
Lord Oaksey said: ‘If you are attacked with a deadly weapon you can defend yourself with a deadly weapon or any other weapon which may protect your life. The law does not concern itself with niceties in such matters. If you are attacked by a prize-fighter you are not bound to adhere to the Queensbury rules in your defence.’ and ‘He is entitled, if he can, to defend himself effectively, and he only loses the protection of the law if he goes beyond defence and proceeds to offence’. The word ‘honest’ should be substituted for ‘fair’ in the usual phrase ‘fair comment.’
Whether the words are capable of being a statement of fact or conversely are only capable of being seen as comment is an issue properly to be dealt with judicially.
Lord Porter said: ‘were a statement of fact, and the facts were untrue, a plea of fair comment would not avail and it is for the jury in a proper case to determine what is comment and what is fact, but a pre-requisite to their right is that the words are capable of being a statement of a fact or facts.’

Lord Porter, Lord Oaksey
[1950] 1 All ER 449
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Merivale v Carson CA 1887
A published criticism of a play made reference to one of the characters being ‘a naughty wife’, though in fact there was no adulterous wife in the play.
Held: The defence of fair comment is open to a commentator however prejudiced he might be, . .
Followed – Somerville v Hawkins 1851
It is necessary for a claimant who wishes to prove malice in an alleged defamation to plead and prove facts which are more consistent with its presence than with its absence. Mawle J said: ‘it is certainly not necessary in order to enable a . .

Cited by:
Cited – Telnikoff v Matusevitch CA 1991
The court considered the element of malice in a defamation defence: ‘If a piece of evidence is equally consistent with malice and the absence of malice, it cannot as a matter of law provide evidence on which the jury could find malice. The judge . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Burstein CA 22-Jun-2007
The newspaper appealed an award of damages for defamation after its theatre critic’s review of an opera written by the claimant. The author said the article made him appear to sympathise with terrorism.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Keene LJ . .
Cited – Telnikoff v Matusevitch HL 14-Nov-1991
The court should decide on whether an article is ‘fact or comment’ purely by reference to the article itself, and not taking into account any of the earlier background coverage. It is the obligation of the relevant commentator to make clear that the . .
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 . .
Cited – Hughes v Risbridger and Another QBD 9-Dec-2009
hughes_risbridgerQBD2009
The defendants, employees of British Airways, sought summary judgement against the claimant in his claim for defamation in several emails. They had discussed the detention of the claimant under suspicion of theft at the airport, and claimed . .
Cited – Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, an MP, complained in defamation of the defendant’s description of his rejected expenses claim regarding an assistant’s charitable donation. The paper pleaded a Reynolds defence. The claimant said that when published the defendant knew . .
Cited – Robins v Kordowski and Another QBD 22-Jul-2011
robins_kordQBD11
The claimant solicitor said he had been defamed on the first defendant’s website (‘Solicitors from Hell’) by the second defendant. The first defendant now applied to set aside judgment entered by default. The claimant additionally sought summary . .
Cited – Seray-Wurie v The Charity Commission of England and Wales CA 3-Feb-2009
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claim for defamation in a reort prepared by the defendants criticising his actions as chairman of a CAB. The action had been struck out on the basis of qualified privilege, and the claimant’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.240311

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.
North J said: ‘I have this to bear in mind, that, if in such a case as this an interlocutory injunction is not granted, I cannot imagine any case in which an interlocutory injunction to restrain a libel could be granted, whereas it is clear on the authorities that there are cases in which it would be proper to grant it. Then there is this further matter to be considered with reference to the point made, that the matter ought to be tried before a jury. I am satisfied of this, that if the matter was before a jury now, upon the evidence which is before me – that is to say, the evidence of the Plaintiffs uncontradicted, not cross-examined to, and merely resting on the Defendant’s evidence in answer to it – I am perfectly satisfied there is not any jury in England who would say there should be a verdict for the Defendant in such a case, and, what is more, if they did, I am quite satisfied it is a case in which a new trial would be directed. This, of course, does not touch what may be the case when the action comes to be tried. There may be evidence before the Court then which would satisfy a jury who tries it that the Defendant has made out a justification. I am merely referring to the materials before me, which are all I can look to now in considering what I am to do in the matter. In these circumstances I have come to the conclusion that an injunction must be granted in the terms which I have mentioned.’

North J
[1891] 2 Ch 269
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – William Coulson and Sons v James Coulson and Co CA 1887
Lord Esher MR said: ‘It could not be denied that the court had jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction before trial. It was, however, a most delicate jurisdiction to exercise, because, though Fox’s Act only applied to indictments and . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 – 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 – CC v AB QBD 4-Dec-2006
The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant and others from making it known that the claimant had had an adulterous relationship with the defendant’s wife. . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 . .
Cited – NT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.219252

The court considered the availability of qualified privilege for reporting of statements made in parliament and the actionable meaning of the article, which comprised in part those statements and in part other factual material representing the newspaper’s own investigative findings. Challenge to the so-called ‘repetition rule’ which generally applies to reported speech in defamation proceedings.
Held: The newspaper’s appeal was allowed. The inclusion of non-privileged material alongside privileged material did not work to defeat the protection given to the privileged material, though ‘reporting privilege will be lost if the quality of fairness required for reporting privilege is lost by intermingling extraneous material with the material for which privilege is claimed.’ Nor in this case had the paper adopted the comments it referred to.
‘There was no suggestion by The Sunday Times that Mr Curistan was guilty of association with IRA money laundering or dirty money or financial malpractice. The operation of the repetition rule is in these circumstances arbitrary and for the reasons given above diminishes the privilege given to reports of Parliamentary proceedings. In my judgment, in those circumstances, it is not disproportionate to hold that the repetition rule does not apply to determine the meaning of the non-privileged parts of the article. Mr Curistan’s private interest in the protection of his reputation has to give way to the public interest in knowing what was said in Parliament. ‘

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Laws and Lady Justice Arden
[2008] EWCA Civ 432, Times 06-May-2008, [2009] 2 WLR 149, [2008] 3 All ER 923, [2008] EMLR 17
Bailii
Defamation Act 1996 15
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 25-Apr-2007
Mr Curistan, a chartered accountant, prominent in Northern Ireland, contended that an article published by the defendant which was partly based on statements made in Parliament, was defamatory of him. . .
Cited – Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd CA 1963
The court considered a request from jurors when assessing damages in a defamation trial for details of the movements in share prices of the plaintiff.
Held: No further evidence could be called. . .
Cited – De Crespigny v Wellesley 9-Feb-1829
In an action for a libel, it is no plea, that the defendant had the libellous statement from another, and upon publication disclosed the author’s name. . .
Cited – McPherson v Daniels 1829
Bayley J said: Upon the great point, viz. whether it is a good defence to an action for slander for a defendant to show he heard it from another, and at that time named the author, I am of the opinion that it is not’ and ‘the law will not permit a . .
Cited – Cookson v Harewood CA 1932
In defamation, a defendant cannot escape liabiity by saying that he is only repeating the words of others. Greer LJ said: ‘If you repeat a rumour, you cannot say it is true by proving that the rumour in fact existed; you have to prove that the . .
Cited – Stern v Piper and Others CA 21-May-1996
The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt.
Held: A defamation was not to be . .
Cited – Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd HL 1964
Ascertaining Meaning of Words for Defamation
The Daily Telegraph had published an article headed ‘Inquiry on Firm by City Police’ and the Daily Mail had published an article headed ‘Fraud Squad Probe Firm’. The plaintiffs claimed that those articles carried the meaning that they were guilty of . .
Cited – Al-Fagih v H H Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd CA 1-Nov-2001
The media’s right to freedom of expression, particularly in the field of political discussion ‘is of a higher order’ than ‘the right of an individual to his good reputation.’ The majority upheld an appeal against a trial judge’s ruling that the . .
Cited – Dingle v Associated Newspapers HL 1964
The plaintiff complained of an article written in the Daily Mail which included the reporting of a report of a Parliamentary select committee. The reporting of the select committee’s report was privileged under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. At . .
Cited – Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd; Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford, Viscount De L’Isle v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 1986
Justification To be Clearly Set Out
The former practice which dictated that a defendant who wished to rely on a different meaning in support of a plea of justification or fair comment, did not have to set out in his defence the meaning on which he based his plea, was ill-founded and . .
Cited – Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 31-Mar-1995
The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual . .
Cited – Chalmers v Payne 1835
Bane and Antidote Doctrine – Take them as One
The court considered the bane and antidote doctrine in defamation. B Alderson said: ‘But the question here is, whether the matter be slanderous or not, which is a question of the Jury; who are to take the whole together and say whether the result of . .
Cited – Wason v Walter; ex parte Wason QBD 1868
Defamation proceedings were begun in respect of newspaper reports of debates in Parliament.
Held: By analogy with reports of judicial proceedings, that fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings were privileged. It was of paramount . .
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 – Mark v Associated Newspapers Limited CA 29-May-2002
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendant had said she had authorised publication of extracts from her book about her time working as housekeeper for the prime minister’s family before she had obtained proper authority for . .
Cited – Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc CA 30-Sep-1996
. .
Cited – Cook v Alexander CA 1974
One may comment upon reports which are themselves the subject of privilege. A report to be fair and accurate must constitute a fair presentation of that which took place on the relevant occasion. It need not be a verbatim report. It can be selective . .
Cited – Andrews v Chapman 1853
A report does not cease to be fair because there are some slight inaccuracies or omissions. However, comment in order to be justifiable as fair comment must appear as comment and must not be so mixed up with the facts that the reader cannot . .
Cited – Mangena v Wright 1909
Where the defamatory allegations are in fact untrue, the defence of fair comment is available only where the occasion was privileged. . .
Cited – Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers 1998
(High Court of Australia ) Kirby J discussed the availability of fair comment as a defece to defamation and said that: ‘Excessive commentary or misleading headlines which amount to commentary run the risk of depriving the text of the quality of . .
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 – Shah and Another v Standard Chartered Bank CA 2-Apr-1998
The plaintiffs appealed against refusal of orders striking out the defences of justification to their libel action.
Held: The words complained of bore an accusation of money laundering. A plea of justification based upon a reasonable belief in . .
Cited – 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 – Berezovsky and Glouchkov v Forbes Inc and Michaels CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant for a magazine article claiming that he was involved in organised crime in Russia. The defendants appealed against the striking out of elements of the defence suggesting lesser meanings. Was meaning a . .
Cited – Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark ECHR 19-Jun-2003
Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1 ; No violation of Art. 10 . .
Cited – Roberts and Another v Gable and others CA 12-Jul-2007
The claimants appealed a finding of qualified privilege in their claim of defamation by the defendant author and magazine which was said to have accused them of theft and threats of violence against other members of the BNP.
Held: The appeal . .

Cited by:
Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina v SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants faced trial on charges of false accounting in connection in different ways with their expenses claims whilst serving as members of the House of Commons. They appealed against rejection of their assertion that the court had no . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.267358

A claim for libel was brought by an Irish priest, who was said to be an informer against disloyal and criminal classes.
Held: The action was dismissed. The argument on behalf of the priest was noted to be that amongst certain classes who were either themselves criminal, or who sympathised with crime, it would expose the priest to great odium to represent him as an informer or prosecutor. Lawson J said: ‘that is quite true, but we cannot be called upon to adopt that standard’, and: ‘The very circumstances which will make a person be regarded with disfavour by the criminal classes will raise his character in the estimation of right-thinking men. We can only regard the estimation in which a man is held by society generally.’

Lawson J
(1869) Ir R 4 CL 54
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Williams v MGN Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2009
The claimant, who had been convicted of murder, complained that an article defamed him by calling him a ‘grass’ or police informer. The defendant asked that the claimant’s defamation action be struck out as an abuse.
Held: While the suggestion . .
Cited – Rufus v Elliott QBD 1-Nov-2013
rufus_elliottQBD2013
The parties were former footballers involved in charitable works. The claimant said that an allegation by the defendant that he the claimant had released for publication a text message in which the the defendant was said to have used extremely . .
Cited – Elliott v Rufus CA 20-Feb-2015
The parties were former footballers and business partners they fell out and the defendant was said to have sent and extremely offensive text message. After a copy was published, the defendant published a press release which the claimant now said was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.421071

The defendant had published a story in its newspaper. At that time it attracted Reynolds qualified privilege. After the circumstances changed, the paper offered an updating item. That offer was rejected as inadequate.
Held: The qualified privilege was attracted at the time of the original publication. Striking the appropriate balance, this was a story of proper public interest. The damage to the claimant’s reputation was real, but was still outweighed.
However, privilege ceased to be available where, as here, the investigations recorded had concluded that the claimant was innocent of the allegations related. The continued publication of the original article on the newpaper’s web-site was no longer privileged, since there could be no continuing public interest in its publication.

Tugendhat J
[2009] EWHC 2375 (QB), Times 23-Oct-2009, [2010] EMLR 8
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Purcell v Sowler CA 1877
A Manchester newspaper reported a public meeting of poor-law guardians, in which a medical officer was said to have neglected to attend pauper patients when sent for.
Held: Publication was not privileged. The Court looked beyond the . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Cited – Stern v Piper and Others CA 21-May-1996
The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt.
Held: A defamation was not to be . .
Cited – Pfeifer v Austria ECHR 15-Nov-2007
The right to protect one’s honour and reputation is to be treated as falling within the protection of Article 8: ‘a person’s reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or her personal identity . .
Cited – 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 – Roberts and Another v Gable and others CA 12-Jul-2007
The claimants appealed a finding of qualified privilege in their claim of defamation by the defendant author and magazine which was said to have accused them of theft and threats of violence against other members of the BNP.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – 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 – 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 – Al-Fagih v H H Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd CA 1-Nov-2001
The media’s right to freedom of expression, particularly in the field of political discussion ‘is of a higher order’ than ‘the right of an individual to his good reputation.’ The majority upheld an appeal against a trial judge’s ruling that the . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – Cumpana Et Mazare -c- Roumanie ECHR 10-Jun-2003
Reputation can be a Convention right within Article 8. . .
Cited – ex parte HTV Cymru (Wales) Ltd 2002
The court granted an injunction to restrain the media from interviewing witnesses during the course of a criminal trial, and until all the evidence was complete. One witness would have to be recalled, and others might be recalled, and accordingly . .
Cited – Bonnick v Morris, The Gleaner Company Ltd and Allen PC 17-Jun-2002
(Jamaica) The appellant sought damages from the respondent journalists in defamation. They had claimed qualified privilege. The words alleged to be defamatory were ambiguous.
Held: The publishers were protected by Reynolds privilege. The court . .
Cited – 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 – Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 And 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2009
The applicant alleged that the rule under United Kingdom law whereby each time material is downloaded from the Internet a new cause of action in libel proceedings accrued (‘the Internet publication rule’) constituted an unjustifiable and . .
Cited – Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .
Cited – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .
Cited – Clarke (T/A Elumina Iberica Uk) v Bain and Another QBD 19-Nov-2008
The defendant asked the court to dismiss claims in defamation in an email saying that it lacked jurisdiction: ‘what is to be found on the internet may become like a tattoo’
Held: The court emphasised the need for careful control by the court . .
See Also – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant police officer complained of an alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant. The defendant wished to obtain information from the IPCC to show that they were investigating the matter as a credible issue. The court . .

Cited by:
Cited – Budu v The British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Mar-2010
budu_bbcQBD2010
The defendant sought to strike out the claimant’s action in defamation. It had reported that the police had withdrawn an employment offer to claimant after doubting his immigration status.
Held: The claims should be struck out. The articles . .
Appeal from – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Jul-2010
The claimant police officer complained of an article he said was defamatory in saying he was being investigated for allegations of accepting bribes. The article remained on the internet even after he was cleared. Each party appealed interim orders. . .
At first instance – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd SC 21-Mar-2012
The defendant had published an article which was defamatory of the claimant police officer, saying that he was under investigation for alleged corruption. The inquiry later cleared him. The court was now asked whether the paper had Reynolds type . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.376177

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.

Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Sir Henry Brooke
[2008] UKPC 9, [2008] 3 WLR 478, [2008] 1 All ER 965, [2009] 1 AC 1, [2008] EMLR 18
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Perera v Peiris PC 1949
Qualified privilege claim upheld
(Ceylon) The ‘Ceylon Daily News’ had published extracts from a report of the Bribery Commission which was critical of Dr. Perera’s lack of frankness in his evidence. The Judicial Committee upheld a claim to qualified privilege. In the light of the . .
Cited – 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 by:
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 . .
See Also – Seaga v Harper (No 2) PC 29-Jun-2009
No conditional fees without country approval
(Jamaica) Jamaican domestic law did not allow conditional fees or for the recovery of an after the event insurance premium for costs. When the case was appealed to the Board, his English solicitors represented him under a conditional fee agreement . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.266061

Failure to plead decisive malice allegation

Appeal by the claimant against an order following a judgment striking out particulars of malice pleaded in the amended reply, among other determinations. Judgment was then entered in favour of the Campaign Against Antisemitsm in respect of a claim for libel. The limited issue on the appeal for which permission has been granted is whether the judge was right to strike out the plea of malice set out in paragraph 26 of the amended reply. The article had referred to spent convictions, and the claimant argued that the defence under s8 of the 1974 Act was disapplied for malice.
Held: The judge had acted correctly. It was clearly a non malicious purpose to say that the convictions pointed toward a greater likelihood that the claimant would lie.

Lord Justice Dingemans
[2021] EWCA Civ 1006
Bailii, Judiciary
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 8
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism QBD 15-Feb-2019
Judgment after a trial of preliminary issues of meaning and whether of fact or opinion.
Nicklin J said: ‘Although the Claimant has selected only parts of the Articles for complaint, the Court must ascertain the meaning of these sections in the . .
See Also – Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism QBD 6-Nov-2020
Defendant’s application to strike out claims in defamation and misuse of personal information. . .
Cited – Horrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .
Cited – Herbage v Pressdram Ltd CA 1984
There was a publication of articles which referred to convictions which were spent under the 1974 Act. The court restated the principle in Bonnard v Perryman: ‘These principles have evolved because of the value the court has placed on freedom of . .
Cited – Herbage v Pressdram Ltd CA 1984
There was a publication of articles which referred to convictions which were spent under the 1974 Act. The court restated the principle in Bonnard v Perryman: ‘These principles have evolved because of the value the court has placed on freedom of . .
Cited – KJO v XIM QBD 7-Jul-2011
The claimant had, some 20 years previously, been convicted and sentenced for forgery of a will. The defendants, relatives, had ever since written to those with whom he had dealings to tell them of the conviction and facts. The claimant, unable to . .
Cited – Thompson v James and Another (2) QBD 15-Mar-2013
A pleading of malice requires a high degree of particularity, and the matters pleaded must be more consistent with the presence of malice than its absence . .
Cited – Bray v Deutsche Bank Ag QBD 12-Jun-2008
A former employee of the defendant bank sued in defamation after the bank published a press release about its results which he said was critical of him.
Held: Where there is a real issue as to whether the words are defamatory of the claimant, . .
Cited – Brewster and Cromwell v Regina CACD 27-May-2010
The defendants appealed against their convictions for kidnapping and witness intimidation saying that the court should have allowed them to put the principle prosecution witness’ bad character in issue by admission of her criminal convictions.
Defamation

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.664387

The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in a referral letter sent to a third party. She had been dismissed from a non-teaching post after having been found using school computers to access pornography. The letter had reported the findings to the third party a ‘relevant employer’ under the Regulations. The letter had suggested misbehaviour in harassment going beyond that alleged. The defendant pleaded qualified privilege, but the claimant pleaded malice.
Held: It would be wrong to strike out the defence since the complaint had been raised by a female muslim worker who well might claim the display of the images was harassment. The judge raised the suggestion that no additional damage may have been caused to the claimant by the extension.
As to malice, Eady J said: ‘as a matter of pleading practice, that allegations of malice must go beyond that which is equivocal or merely neutral. There must be something from which a jury, ultimately, could rationally infer malice; in the sense that the relevant person was either dishonest in making the defamatory communication or had a dominant motive to injure the claimant. Mere assertion will not do.’ Here the facts if anything pointed away from malice rather than toward it.
In addition the defendant may be able to run an argument that per Jameel, the game is not worth the candle and the claim an abuse.

Eady J
[2010] EWHC 1651 (QB)
Bailii
Education (Prohibition from Teaching or Working with Children) Regulations 2003, Defamation Act 1996 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Telnikoff v Matusevitch HL 14-Nov-1991
The court should decide on whether an article is ‘fact or comment’ purely by reference to the article itself, and not taking into account any of the earlier background coverage. It is the obligation of the relevant commentator to make clear that the . .
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 – Alexander v Arts Council of Wales CA 9-Apr-2001
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.420225

Chilling effect of defamation costs structures

Eady J said: ‘The claimant in these proceedings is seeking damages against News Group Newspapers Ltd, as publishers of The News of the World, in respect of articles appearing in the editions of that newspaper dated 3 November 2002 . . He issued his claim form under an assumed name (Alin Turcu), almost at the end of the one year limitation period, on 31 October 2003. He only revealed his true identity in early February of this year, about two months before trial, as Bogdan Stefan Maris. He was born in Romania on 26 July 1980 and is thus now aged 24. He appears to have borrowed the name Turcu from someone he knew in prison in Romania.
The claimant’s false identity is not the only respect in which this case is unusual. The claimant has not taken part in the trial and has not even served a witness statement. Mr David Price, a solicitor advocate, has represented him on the basis of the instructions he received from his client, but without the advantage of his evidence to back up those instructions. Mr Maris is apparently residing somewhere in Romania. Indeed, Mr Price told me before the trial began that he had last had contact with his client shortly after the true identity was revealed and, at the commencement of the trial, he remained out of touch and thus was only able to proceed on the basis of past instructions. He did, however, indicate that telephone contact was resumed at some time during the first week of the trial – but still no witness statement was forthcoming.
The evidence adduced by the defendant, which has not been challenged, is that the claimant is a petty criminal with a list of criminal charges or convictions at least in Romania, Germany, Italy and England. According to the evidence of a senior police officer from Neamt in Romania, ‘he is known as a very intelligent criminal’. He came to England in August 1999 using his assumed name of Turcu and made an application for political asylum on the basis of a statement, which has been produced in evidence, and which contains a largely concocted account of his life and circumstances. His application was rejected, but he was allowed exceptional leave to remain in this jurisdiction until 2004, purely because he had lied, apart from anything else, about his age. He was thought to be 16 years old, whereas in fact by that time he was 19. He had already been sentenced in Romania on three occasions to terms of imprisonment. Had his true identity and age been revealed, he would not have been allowed to remain in this country.
When he was arrested in 2002 he was found to be in possession of forged Greek and Italian identity documents bearing his photograph but false names. I can readily infer that the claimant had those documents to facilitate the commission of crimes and to mislead the law enforcement authorities. He had been arrested in Italy only eight days before his arrival in England and that may possibly explain why he was seeking pastures new.
He eventually obtained employment in London on the basis that he was here legally, and thus he deceived his employers also . .
The claimant now seeks a large award of damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages, against the proprietors of The News of the World, who were denied the opportunity not only of cross-examining him but also of even seeing evidence from him denying their published allegations, or to support the serious charges of dishonesty made on his behalf in the course of the trial. He is able to pursue his claim purely because Mr Price has been prepared to act on his behalf on the basis of a conditional fee agreement. This means, of course, that significant costs can be run up for the defendant without any prospect of recovery if they are successful, since one of the matters on which Mr Price does apparently have instructions is that his client is without funds. On the other hand, if the defendant is unsuccessful it may be ordered to pay, quite apart from any damages, the costs of the claimant’s solicitors including a substantial mark-up in respect of a success fee. The defendant’s position is thus wholly unenviable.
Faced with these circumstances, there must be a significant temptation for media defendants to pay up something, to be rid of litigation for purely commercial reasons, and without regard to the true merits of any pleaded defence. This is the so-called ‘chilling effect’ or ‘ransom factor’ inherent in the conditional fee system, which was discussed by the Court of Appeal in King v Telegraph Group Ltd . .This is a situation which could not have arisen in the past and is very much a modern development.’
and ‘English law is generally able to accommodate the policy factors underlying the Article 10 [the right to freedom of expression] jurisprudence by means of established common law principles; for example that a defamatory allegation need only be proved, on a balance of probabilities, to be substantially true. The court should not be too literal in its approach or insist upon proof of every detail where it is not essential to the sting of the article… So too the demands of a defence of justification are sometimes mitigated by the terms of section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 (although not of relevance here).
Each case obviously depends on its own unique circumstances and the application of these considerations of public policy will to a large extent be a matter of impression.
In deciding whether any given libel is substantially true, the court will have well in mind the requirement to allow for exaggeration, at the margins, and have regard in that context also to proportionality. In other words, one needs to consider whether the sting of a libel has been established having regard to its overall gravity and the relative significance of any elements of inaccuracy or exaggeration. Provided these criteria are applied, and the defence would otherwise succeed, it is no part of the court’s function to penalise a defendant for sloppy journalism . . I must set all that to one side . . and focus only on substance.’

Eady J
[2005] EWHC 799 (QB)
Bailii
Defamation Act 1952 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .
Cited – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .
Appeal from – Turcu v News Group Newspaper Ltd CA 26-May-2006
The appellant had failed in his action for damages against the newspaper which had accused him of a plot to kidnap the wife of an England footballer. He now sought leave to appeal.
Held: Evidence unavailable at the trial now suggested that the . .
Cited – O’Dwyer v ITV Plc QBD 30-Nov-2012
The defendant sought to have struck out the claim for defamation based on the defendant’s ‘Homes from Hell’ TV programme.
Held: The pleaded meanings failed, and an application to amend the particulars was refused. The action was struck out.
Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.224558

A subordinate distributor, here a vendor of newspapers, can plead the common law defence to defamation, of innocent dissemination.
Held: The vendor was prima facie liable, and therefore had to demonstrate the defence to avoid liability. He must show that he did not know that it contained a libel; that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part; and that he did not know, and had no ground for supposing, that the newspaper was likely to contain libellous matter.
Lord Escher MR said: ‘But the defendants did not compose the libel on the plaintiff, they did not write it or print it; they only disseminated that which contained the libel. The question is whether, as such disseminators, they published the libel? If they had known what was in the paper, whether they were paid for circulating it or not, they would have published the libel, and would have been liable for so doing. That, I think, cannot be doubted. But here, upon the findings of the jury, we must take it that the defendants did not know that the paper contained a libel.’ and ‘In my opinion, any proposition the result of which would be to show that the common law of England is wholly unreasonable and unjust, cannot be part of the common law of England.’
Bowen LJ said: ‘A newspaper is not like a fire; a man may carry it about without being bound to suppose that it is likely to do an injury.’

Lord Escher MR, Bowen LJ
(1885) 16 QBD 354
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 – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Cited – Bunt v Tilley and others QBD 10-Mar-2006
bunt_tilleyQBD2006
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had . .
Cited – Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others QBD 16-Jul-2009
The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a . .
Cited – Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others QBD 16-Jul-2009
The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a . .
Cited – Weller and Others v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Nov-2015
The three children of a musician complained of the publication of photographs taken of them in a public place in California. . .
Cited – 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) . .
Cited – Hulton and Co v Jones HL 6-Dec-1909
The defendant newspaper published an article describing the attendance at a motor race at Dieppe. It described the antics, intending to refer to a fictitious person, of one Artemus Jones, and said of him that he was ‘with a woman who is not his . .
Mentioned – Jones v E Hulton and Co CA 26-May-1909
The defendants, who were the proprietors and publishers of a newspaper, published in an article in their paper defamatory statements of a named person believed by the writer of the article and by the defendants to be a fictitious personage with an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.194307

The plaintiff brought libel proceedings against the publishers of French and Belgian newspapers. He obtained permission to serve each defendant out of the jurisdiction on the ground that a small number of copies of each newspaper had been published in England. The vast bulk of the publications had been in France and Germany.
Held: The order giving permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was set aside. Slesser LJ: ‘in no sense can it be said that there is any substantial importation of these papers in England, or that the libel which is said to affect the plaintiff in England is anything but a very minor incident of the substantial publication in France.’ Scott LJ: ‘I think that it would be ridiculous and fundamentally wrong to have these two cases tried in this country, on a very small and technical publication, when the real grievance of the plaintiff is a grievance against the widespread publication of the two papers in the respective countries where they are published.’

Scott LJ, Slesser LJ
[1937] 1 All ER 725
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .
Cited – Mardas v New York Times Company and Another QBD 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.223356

Fair Comment Crticism of Newspaper Publisher

The plaintiff alleged that the headline to an article written by the defendant which criticised the behaviour of the Beaverbrook Press, and which read ‘Lower than Kemsley’ was defamatory. The defendant pleaded fair comment. The plaintiff appealed. An application on the RSC Order 19 rule 27 and RSC order 25 rule 4 was made to strike out this defence, on the ground that it could not succeed, because no facts appeared in the article to support the statement in the headline. The Court was asked whether a plea of fair comment is only permissible where the comment is accompanied by a statement of facts upon which the comment is made and to determine the particularity with which the facts must be stated.
Held: The appeal failed. In order to admit a plea of fair comment it was unnecessary that all the facts on which the comment was based should be stated in the alleged libel. Here a sufficient substratum of fact was to be implied from the words, viz that the plaintiff was responsible for the Press of which he was the active proprietor. The criticism was that the press was low and any facts sufficient to justify that statement would entitle the defendant’s to succeed. Failure to establish all the facts given in the particulars of defence would not necessarily disentitle them to succeed.
The article could be construed to infer that the Kemsley Press was of a low and undesirable quality and that Lord Kemsley was responsible for its tone. That was an inference which could be drawn from the three words ‘Lower than Kemsley’. The facts relied upon by the defendants in their pleading to support that brief comment consisted of ‘excerpts from the plaintiff’s newspapers and allegations of certain respects in which they were inaccurate or untruthful together with complaints of their tone and the impropriety of their methods of dealing with the news in them, even when it was accurate’. The defendant was entitled to rely upon such material.
Lord Porter said: ‘The question, therefore, in all cases is whether there is a sufficient substratum of fact stated or indicated in the words which are the subject-matter of the action, and I find my view well expressed in the remarks contained in Odgers on Libel and Slander (6th ed, 1929), at p.166. ‘Sometimes, however,’ he says, ‘it is difficult to distinguish an allegation of fact from an expression of an opinion. It often depends on what is stated in the rest of the article. If the defendant accurately states what some public man has really done, and then asserts that ‘such conduct is disgraceful,’ this is merely the expression of his opinion, his comment on the plaintiff’s conduct. So, if without setting it out, he identifies the conduct on which he comments by a clear reference. In either case, the defendant enables his readers to judge for themselves how far his opinion is well founded; and, therefore, what would otherwise have been an allegation of fact becomes merely a comment. But if he asserts that the plaintiff has been guilty of disgraceful conduct, and does not state what that conduct was, this is an allegation of fact for which there is no defence but privilege or truth. The same considerations apply where a defendant has drawn from certain facts an inference derogatory to the plaintiff. If he states the bare inference without the facts on which it is based, such inference will be treated as an allegation of fact. But if he sets out the facts correctly, and then gives his inference, stating it as his inference from those facts, such inference will, as a rule, be deemed a comment. But even in this case the writer must be careful to state the inference as an inference, and not to assert it as a new and independent fact; otherwise, his inference will become something more than a comment, and he may be driven to justify it as an allegation of fact’.
‘if an author writes a play or a book or a composer composes a musical work, he is submitting that work to the public and thereby inviting comment.’
Lord Porter: ‘In a case where the facts are fully set out in the alleged libel, each fact must be justified and if the defendant fails to justify one, even if it be comparatively unimportant, he fails in his defence. Does the same principle apply where the facts alleged are found not in the alleged libel but in particulars delivered in the course of the action? In my opinion it does not. Where the facts are set out in the alleged libel, those to whom it is published can read them and may regard them as facts derogatory to the plaintiff; but where, as here, they are contained only in particulars and are not published to the world at large, they are not the subject-matter of the comment but facts alleged to justify that comment.
In the present case, for instance, the substratum of fact upon which comment is based is that Lord Kemsley is the active proprietor of and responsible for the Kemsley Press. The criticism is that that press is the low one. As I hold, any facts sufficient to justify that statement would entitle the defendants to succeed in a plea of fair comment. Twenty facts might be given in the particulars but only one justified, yet if that one fact were sufficient to support the comment so as to make it fair, a failure to prove the other nineteen would not of necessity defeat the defendants’ plea’.
Lord Tucker: ‘I also desire expressly to state my concurrence in [Lord Porter’s] opinion that where the facts relied on to justify the comment are contained only in the particulars it is not incumbent on the defendant to prove the truth of every fact so stated in order to establish his plea of fair comment, but that he must establish sufficient facts to support the comment to the satisfaction of the jury’.
Lord Oaksey said: ‘The forms in which a comment on a matter of public importance may be framed are almost infinitely various and, in my opinion, it is unnecessary that all the facts on which the comment is based should be stated in the libel in order to admit the defence of fair comment. It is not, in my opinion, a matter of importance that a reader should be able to see exactly the grounds of the comment. It is sufficient if the subject which ex hypothesi is of public importance is sufficiently and not incorrectly or untruthfully stated. A comment based on facts untruly stated cannot be fair. What is meant in cases in which it has been said comment to be fair must be on facts truly stated is, I think, that the facts so far as they are stated in the libel must not be untruly stated.’
Lord Porter said also: ‘Not all the public will see or read or hear it but the work is public in the same sense as a case in the Law Courts is said to be heard in public. In many cases it is not possible for everyone who is interested, to attend a trial, but in so far as there is room for them in the court all are entitled to do so, and the subject-matter upon which comment can be made is indicated to the world at large.’

Lord Porter, Lord Tucker, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Goddard CJ, Lord Oaksey
[1952] AC 345
UNISET
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Kemsley v Foot CA 14-Dec-1950
Pleading of Fair Comment Defence
The plaintiff newspaper proprietor complained that the defendant had defamed him in a publication ‘The Tribune’ with a headline to an article ‘Lower than Hemsley’ which article otherwise had no connection with the plaintiff. He said it suggested . .
Cited – Carr v Hood QBD 1808
Lord Ellenborough said: ‘it is not libellous to ridicule a literary composition, or the author of it, in so far as he has embodied himself with his work.
Every man who publishes a book commits himself to the judgment of the public, and anyone . .

Cited by:
Cited – Keays v Guardian Newspapers Limited, Alton, Sarler QBD 1-Jul-2003
The claimant asserted defamation by the defendant. The parties sought a decision on whether the article at issue was a comment piece, in which case the defendant could plead fair comment, or one asserting fact, in which case that defence would not . .
Cited – George Galloway MP v The Telegraph Group Ltd CA 25-Jan-2006
The defendant appealed agaiunst a finding that it had defamed the claimant by repeating the contents of papers found after the invasion of Iraq which made claims against the claimant. The paper had not sought to justify the claims, relying on . .
Followed – Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Feb-2006
The defendant sought to defend the claim for defamation by claiming fair comment. The claimant said that the relevant facts were not known to the defendant at the time of the publication.
Held: To claim facts in aid of a defence of fair . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Burstein CA 22-Jun-2007
The newspaper appealed an award of damages for defamation after its theatre critic’s review of an opera written by the claimant. The author said the article made him appear to sympathise with terrorism.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Keene LJ . .
Cited – Telnikoff v Matusevitch HL 14-Nov-1991
The court should decide on whether an article is ‘fact or comment’ purely by reference to the article itself, and not taking into account any of the earlier background coverage. It is the obligation of the relevant commentator to make clear that the . .
Cited – Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert Cheng 13-Nov-2000
(Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong) For the purposes of the defence to defamation of fair comment: ‘The comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, what are the facts on which the comment is being made. The reader or . .
Cited – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 12-Nov-2009
The claimant sought damages for an article in the defendant’s newspaper, a review of her book which said she had falsely claimed to have interviewed artists including the review author and that the claimant allowed interviewees control over what was . .
Cited – Spiller and Another v Joseph and Others SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants had published remarks on its website about the reliability of the claimant. When sued in defamation, they pleaded fair comment, but that was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The defendants’ appeal succeeded, and the fair . .
Cited – Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, an MP, complained in defamation of the defendant’s description of his rejected expenses claim regarding an assistant’s charitable donation. The paper pleaded a Reynolds defence. The claimant said that when published the defendant knew . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.184399

The court considered the levels of meaning in an article falsely connecting the claimant with terrorist activity: ‘Once it is recognised that the article may be asserting no more than that in one way or another the respondents may unwittingly have assisted terrorists in the past and may by introducing more controls be able to prevent that in future, the borderline between what for convenience we have been calling level 2 meaning (reasonable grounds to suspect) and level 3 meaning (grounds merely for investigation) becomes somewhat blurred. The difference and inter-relationship between level 2 and level 3 meanings have been disclosed in a number of cases, most notably in Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234 (where this distinction was first drawn), Bennett v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EMLR 218. It is not perhaps an entirely satisfactory distinction.’ The exercise is one of ‘pre-empting perversity.’
The judge’s task under CPR PD 53 para 4.1 is no more and no less than to ‘pre-empt perversity’
As to the process of shutting out meanings, Simon Brown LJ said: ‘every time a meaning is shut out (including any holding that the words complained of either are, or are not, capable of bearing a defamatory meaning) it must be remembered that the judge is taking it upon himself to rule in effect that any jury would be perverse to take a different view on the question. It is a high threshold of exclusion. Ever since Fox’s Act 1792 the meaning of words in civil as well as criminal libel proceedings has been constitutionally a matter for the jury. The judge’s function is no more and no less than to pre-empt perversity. That being clearly the position with regard to whether or not words are capable of being understood as defamatory or, as the case may be, non-defamatory, I see no basis on which it could sensibly be otherwise with regard to differing levels of defamatory meaning. Often the question whether words are defamatory at all and, if so, what level of defamatory meaning they bear will overlap. ‘

Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Simon Brown
[2003] EWCA Civ 1694, [2004] EMLR 6
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules PD 53.4.1
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL QBD 20-Jan-2004
It is almost inevitable that in a Reynolds privilege case to be tried by jury there will be presented to them a list of questions, sometimes no doubt formidably long. The object is to enable the judge to have the factual matrix upon which to make . .
At First Instance – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl QBD 2003
. .
Appeal from – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Ltd v Wall St Journal Europe SPRL QBD 7-Oct-2003
The court was asked to rule on two remaining pre-trial issues in this defamation claim. ‘namely, (1) an issue of meaning and (2) questions on the admissibility and relevance of eleven witness statements served on the Claimants’ behalf, and . .

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 . .
See Also – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL QBD 20-Jan-2004
It is almost inevitable that in a Reynolds privilege case to be tried by jury there will be presented to them a list of questions, sometimes no doubt formidably long. The object is to enable the judge to have the factual matrix upon which to make . .
Cited – Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Feb-2006
The defendant sought to defend the claim for defamation by claiming fair comment. The claimant said that the relevant facts were not known to the defendant at the time of the publication.
Held: To claim facts in aid of a defence of fair . .
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 – 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 – Budu v The British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Mar-2010
budu_bbcQBD2010
The defendant sought to strike out the claimant’s action in defamation. It had reported that the police had withdrawn an employment offer to claimant after doubting his immigration status.
Held: The claims should be struck out. The articles . .
Cited – 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: . .
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 – Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Foley and Others QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to strike out defences of justification and fair comment saying that the pleadings were unsustainable for lack of clarity.
Held: The pleadings did contain obfuscation, and ‘if there is a viable defence of justification or . .
Cited – O’Dwyer v ITV Plc QBD 30-Nov-2012
The defendant sought to have struck out the claim for defamation based on the defendant’s ‘Homes from Hell’ TV programme.
Held: The pleaded meanings failed, and an application to amend the particulars was refused. The action was struck out.
See Also – Jameel and Another v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl QBD 5-Dec-2003
The defendant sought an order dismissing the defamation claim brought against it, saying that the rule that a defamation claim might be brought without proof of damage to reputation could not survive the introduction of the 1998 Act. . .
See Also – Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .
Cited – Elliott v Rufus CA 20-Feb-2015
The parties were former footballers and business partners they fell out and the defendant was said to have sent and extremely offensive text message. After a copy was published, the defendant published a press release which the claimant now said was . .
Cited – 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

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.188251

The claimant appealed against directions given in her defamation action against the defendant. It had been said that she owned a house, and the defendant said that this was not defamatory. The claimant said that as the wife of the Mayor of Moscow and under a duty to declare any such asset, the mistaken assertion made her look hypocritical or a liar.
Held: The court now having evidence not before Eady J, the appeal succeeded. Whilst the claimant may still have difficulty at trial, and subject to some remaining issues in the pleadings, the claim did raise triable issues and should proceed.
The test of whether the claimant has been identified in the publication is an objective one, which does not depend in any way on what the defendant knows or intends will happen

Lord Neuberger MR, Sedley, Hooper LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 308, [2011] 1 WLR 1526, [2011] EMLR 19, [2011] HRLR 22
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – E Hulton and Co v Jones HL 1910
An article was written by a correspondent of an English newspaper reporting that at a large and well attended motor vehicle show in France there on the terraces was ‘Artemus Jones with a woman not his wife who must be you know – the other thing.’ . .
Cited – Spiller and Another v Joseph and Others SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants had published remarks on its website about the reliability of the claimant. When sued in defamation, they pleaded fair comment, but that was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The defendants’ appeal succeeded, and the fair . .
Cited – 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 – Bonnick v Morris, The Gleaner Company Ltd and Allen PC 17-Jun-2002
(Jamaica) The appellant sought damages from the respondent journalists in defamation. They had claimed qualified privilege. The words alleged to be defamatory were ambiguous.
Held: The publishers were protected by Reynolds privilege. The court . .
Cited – Cassidy v Daily Mirror CA 1929
Words which would not otherwise have been defamatory can become so because of circumstances. The intention of the defendant is irrelevant: ‘Liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamor; but on the fact of defamation.’
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 – Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd HL 1971
The plaintiff claimed in defamation. The defence was that the words did not refer to the plaintiff and could not be understood to refer to him.
Held: The question as to what meaning words are capable of bearing has been described as a question . .
Cited – O’Shea v MGN Ltd and Free4Internet Net Limited QBD 4-May-2001
The defendant newspaper published a lawful advertisement for an adult internet service featuring, with her agreement, a photograph of a young woman, who very closely resembled the claimant.
Held: The claim in defamation failed. Morland J . .
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 . .
Appeal from – Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Mar-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of an article published by the defendant newspaper. She was the wife of the Mayor of Moscow, and was required to disclose on a public list assets held by her. The defendant said that she owned a . .
Cited – Hulton and Co v Jones HL 6-Dec-1909
The defendant newspaper published an article describing the attendance at a motor race at Dieppe. It described the antics, intending to refer to a fictitious person, of one Artemus Jones, and said of him that he was ‘with a woman who is not his . .

Cited by:
Cited – Lewis v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Others (Rev 1) QBD 31-Mar-2011
lewis_cpmQBD11
The defendant sought a ruling on the meaning of the words but using section 69(4) of the 1981 Act. The claimant solicitor was acting in complaints as to the unlawful interception of celebrity voicemails by agents of the press. There had been debate . .
Cited – Wright v Caan QBD 27-Jul-2011
The claimant sought damages in defamation and malicious falsehood and in respect of a conversation with a journalist and the defendant’s website. The defendant had made offers of support to her business venture in a television program. After she . .
Cited – Economou v De Freitas QBD 27-Jul-2016
Failed action for defamation on rape allegations
The claimant had been accused by the defendant’s daughter of rape. He was never charged but sought to prosecute her alleging intent to pervert the course of justice. She later killed herself. The defendant sought to have the inquest extended to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.430824

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 question of fact, and it must depend on the circumstances in each case whether or not publication has taken place. It is said that as a general proposition where the act of the person alleged to have published a libel has not been any positive act, but has merely been the refraining from doing some act, he cannot be guilty of publication. I am quite unable to accept any such general proposition. It may very well be that in some circumstances a person, by refraining from removing or obliterating the defamatory matter, is not committing any publication at all. In other circumstances he may be doing so. The test it appears to me is this: having regard to all the facts of the case is the proper inference that by not removing the defamatory matter the defendant really made himself responsible for its continued presence in the place where it had been put?’
It was not defamatory to allege, in the form of a short rhyme posted in the location of the removed machine, that a member of a club had given information to the police about illegal gaming machines in the club. The argument of the Plaintiff before the Court of Appeal was that ‘the sting of the libel . . is that the plaintiff has been disloyal to the fellow members of his club.’
Slesser LJ said: ‘Now, in my view, to say or to allege of a man – and for this purpose, as my Lord has said, it does not matter whether the allegation is true or is not true – that he has reported certain acts, wrongful in law, to the police, cannot possibly be said to be defamatory of him in the minds of the general public.
We have to consider in this connection the arbitrium boni, the view which would be taken by the ordinary good and worthy subject of the King, and I have assigned to myself no other criterion than what a good and worthy subject of the King would think of some person of whom it had been said that he had put the law into motion against wrongdoers, in considering that such a good and worthy subject would not consider such an allegation in itself to be defamatory.’
Greene LJ refined the meaning of the rhyme to be ‘that he was guilty of disloyalty by reporting the matter to the police’. He noted that it could not be considered defamatory to say that he had reported the matter to the police and continued ‘if the allegation that he reported the matter to the police is not defamatory, in my judgment the allegation that in reporting the matter to the police he was guilty of disloyalty cannot be defamatory’. Greene LJ rejected the notion that there could be degrees of criminal behaviour, and that illegal gaming machines should be considered less worthy of official report.
Greer LJ dissented, considering that the statement in the document was ‘that the Plaintiff who gave the game away was guilty of disloyalty to his fellow members of the Club’.

Greene LJ, Slesser LJ, Greer LJ
[1937] 1 KB 818
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 – Bunt v Tilley and others QBD 10-Mar-2006
bunt_tilleyQBD2006
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had . .
Cited – Bunt v Tilley and others QBD 10-Mar-2006
bunt_tilleyQBD2006
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had . .
Cited – Kaschke v Gray and Another QBD 23-Jul-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendants had published a web page which falsely associated her with a terrorist gang in the 1970s. The defendants now sought a strike out of her claim as an abuse saying that a similar . .
Cited – 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 . .
Binding – Rufus v Elliott QBD 1-Nov-2013
rufus_elliottQBD2013
The parties were former footballers involved in charitable works. The claimant said that an allegation by the defendant that he the claimant had released for publication a text message in which the the defendant was said to have used extremely . .
Followed – Williams v MGN Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2009
The claimant, who had been convicted of murder, complained that an article defamed him by calling him a ‘grass’ or police informer. The defendant asked that the claimant’s defamation action be struck out as an abuse.
Held: While the suggestion . .
Cited – Elliott v Rufus CA 20-Feb-2015
The parties were former footballers and business partners they fell out and the defendant was said to have sent and extremely offensive text message. After a copy was published, the defendant published a press release which the claimant now said was . .
Cited – Weller and Others v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Nov-2015
The three children of a musician complained of the publication of photographs taken of them in a public place in California. . .
Cited – 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) . .
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.194308

Settling Meaning in Defamation Cases

Nicklin J set out the approach to meaning in defamation actions: The Court’s task is to determine the single natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of, which is the meaning that the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand the words bear. It is well recognised that there is an artificiality in this process because individual readers may understand words in different ways: Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB 157, 173D- E, per Lord Diplock.
The following key principles can be distilled from the authorities:
(i) The governing principle is reasonableness.
(ii) The intention of the publisher is irrelevant.
(iii) The hypothetical reasonable reader is not naive, but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking but he must be treated as being a man who is not avid for scandal and someone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available. A reader who always adopts a bad meaning where a less serious or non-defamatory meaning is available is not reasonable: s/he is avid for scandal. But always to adopt the less derogatory meaning would also be unreasonable: it would be naive.
(iv) Over-elaborate analysis should be avoided and the court should certainly not take a too literal approach to the task.
(v) Consequently, a judge providing written reasons for conclusions on meaning should not fall into the trap of conducting too detailed an analysis of the various passages relied on by the respective parties.
(vi) Any meaning that emerges as the produce of some strained, or forced, or utterly unreasonable interpretation should be rejected.
(vii) It follows that it is not enough to say that by some person or another the words might be understood in a defamatory sense.
(viii) The publication must be read as a whole, and any ‘bane and antidote’ taken together. Sometimes, the context will clothe the words in a more serious defamatory meaning (for example the classic ‘rogues’ gallery’ case). In other cases, the context will weaken (even extinguish altogether) the defamatory meaning that the words would bear if they were read in isolation (e.g. bane and antidote cases).
(ix) In order to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the statement of which the claimant complains, it is necessary to take into account the context in which it appeared and the mode of publication.
(x) No evidence, beyond the publication complained of, is admissible in determining the natural and ordinary meaning.
(xi) The hypothetical reader is taken to be representative of those who would read the publication in question. The court can take judicial notice of facts which are common knowledge but should beware of reliance on impressionistic assessments of the characteristics of a publication’s readership.
(xii) 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.
(xiii) In determining the single meaning, the court is free to choose the correct meaning; it is not bound by the meanings advanced by the parties (save that it cannot find a meaning that is more injurious than the claimant’s pleaded meaning).’

Nicklin J
[2019] EWHC 48 (QB), [2020] 4 WLR 25
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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:
Cited – ZC v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust QBD 26-Jul-2019
Defamation/privacy claims against doctors failed
The claimant, seeking damages for alleged defamation, now asked for the case to be anonymised.
Held: The conditions for anonymisation were not met. The anonymity would be retained temporarily until any time for appeal had passed.
As to . .
Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Cited – Hayden v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Mar-2020
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant, and the court now considered the meanings of the words complained of. Another person had been held by police for seven hours after identifying the claimant as a transgendered man.
Held: The . .
Cited – Vardy v Rooney QBD 20-Nov-2020
Trial of meaning as a preliminary issue in this claim for libel. . .
Cited – Campbell v MGN Ltd QBD 16-Mar-2021
Preliminary issues as to the meaning of an extract from a newspaper article. . .
Cited – Ware v Wimborne-Idrissi and Others QBD 13-Aug-2021
Judgment after a trial of preliminary issues relating to the meaning of the words complained of in a claim for libel. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.632724

The claimant alleged defamation. The defendant offered to make amends but wished to maintain his denial that the statement itself was defamatory.
Held: An offer of amends required acceptance that the statement had been defamatory. A statement could not be defamatory only in the abstract.

Tugendhat J
[2008] EWHC 2552 (QB), Times 10-Dec-2008
Bailii
Defamation Act 1996 2(2)
England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.277344

The claimant complained of a defamation alleged in the words ‘Let me know if he is abusive to you’.
Held: The claim failed. The words complained of did not carry a defamatory meaning. There was no innuendo present: ‘no jury with its feet on the ground and its head in the real world could sensibly regard this handwritten compliment slip as containing more than an offer to step in if the neighbour with whom the recipient of the slip was in dispute were to become abusive or otherwise difficult.’

Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Keene and Lady Justice Smith
[2008] EWCA Civ 1577
Bailii, Times
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cassidy v Daily Mirror CA 1929
Words which would not otherwise have been defamatory can become so because of circumstances. The intention of the defendant is irrelevant: ‘Liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamor; but on the fact of defamation.’
Cited – Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd HL 1964
Ascertaining Meaning of Words for Defamation
The Daily Telegraph had published an article headed ‘Inquiry on Firm by City Police’ and the Daily Mail had published an article headed ‘Fraud Squad Probe Firm’. The plaintiffs claimed that those articles carried the meaning that they were guilty of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.291912

The two claimants, each convicted of serious offences of false imprisonment and violent assault, complained of a press release issued by the defendant which, they said accused them of involvement in a murder.
Held: The words complained of did not mean that either of the claimants was a murderer, despite the headline ‘Three jailed for murder of Marvin Henry’. That is because the text of the press release makes it quite clear that neither of the claimants was jailed for murder, and it would be clear from the body of the press release that neither of them was involved in the murder in the sense of being convicted of murder, which would be what most normal people would understand by involvement in murder, but at the same time, it (rightly) states that the two murderers, McPhee and Irvani, were also convicted of false imprisonment and grievous bodily harm, the same offences as these claimants and the other man convicted, Faley. ‘I therefore conclude that the meaning of the words complained of is that the claimants were each jailed for a total of six years’ imprisonment for offences of grievous bodily harm and false imprisonment, committed in the course of their involvement in the lead-up to the murder of Marvin Henry.’

Richard Parkes QC HHJ
[2014] EWHC 3408 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd CA 1968
Courts to Settle upon a single meaning if disputed
The ‘single meaning’ rule adopted in the law of defamation is in one sense highly artificial, given the range of meanings the impugned words sometimes bear. The law of defamation ‘has passed beyond redemption by the courts’. Where in a libel action . .
Cited – 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 – Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 31-Mar-1995
The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual . .
Cited – John v Guardian News and Media Ltd QBD 12-Dec-2008
The court is entitled to take account of the nature of the hypothetical reasonable reader, in this case the ‘educated readership’ of the Guardian Weekend section, when deciding the impied meanings in a statement said to be defamatory. Tugendhat J . .
Cited – McAlpine v Bercow QBD 2014
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in making a false allegation against him.
Held: The second Jeynes principle does not mean that the court must always choose the least defamatory meaning available. Where there are two possible . .
Cited – Johnston v League Publications Ltd and Others QBD 26-Mar-2014
Application to determine meanings.
Held: When asked to determine the meanings in a statement alleged to be defamatory, the court is not restricted to the meaning put forward by the parties: ‘The test is that of the ‘ordinary reader’. That . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.537779

The claimant sought to strike out defences of justification and fair comment saying that the pleadings were unsustainable for lack of clarity.
Held: The pleadings did contain obfuscation, and ‘if there is a viable defence of justification or fair comment in relation to these very important and serious allegations, then it is in everyone’s interests that it sees the light of day and can be properly addressed on a fair and open basis. What is not, however, either in the public interest or to the advantage of either of the parties is for the case to proceed on a muddled basis, with the Claimant and his advisers not being aware of the case they have to meet, either at the stage of disclosure of documents or at the trial itself. That is why the current pleas of justification and fair comment should be struck out.’ Orders accordingly.

Eady J
[2011] EWHC 292 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hickinbotham v Leach 1842
To a declaration for words, imputing to the plaintiff, a pawnbroker, that he had committed the unfair and dishonourable practice of duffing, that is, of replenishing or doing up goods, being in his hands in a damaged or worn-out condition, and . .
Cited – Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd; Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford, Viscount De L’Isle v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 1986
Justification To be Clearly Set Out
The former practice which dictated that a defendant who wished to rely on a different meaning in support of a plea of justification or fair comment, did not have to set out in his defence the meaning on which he based his plea, was ill-founded and . .
Cited – Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corporation v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl QBD 12-Jun-2003
. .
Cited – Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corporation v the Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) QBD 21-Jul-2003
. .
Cited – Control Risks v New English Library CA 1989
In a defamation claim, there is a parallel to be drawn between what is necessary in respect of the defence of justification and what is necessary where the defence of fair comment is raised. Where justification is pleaded, a defendant is required to . .
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 – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another (No 4) QBD 4-Mar-2009
Orders were sought to strike out part of the defendants defence of justification to an allegation of defamation.
Held: Where there remains the possibility of a jury trial, it becomes especially important to identify the issues the jurors are . .
Cited – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 1) CA 26-Nov-2003
The court considered the levels of meaning in an article falsely connecting the claimant with terrorist activity: ‘Once it is recognised that the article may be asserting no more than that in one way or another the respondents may unwittingly have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.429739

The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual intercourse, with a headline ‘Strewth! What’s Harold up to with our Madge?’. The body of the article made clear that the photographs had been produced by pornographers without the plaintiffs’ consent. The claim was based on the contention that some readers would have looked only at the photographs and the headline, and complained that such readers would have thought that the plaintiffs had in some way consented to the production of the photographs. The defendant newspaper had published an article with a headline and illustrated by photographs. The plaintiff complained of the meaning which they said was conveyed to a publishee who read the headline and looked at the picture, but did not read the article. The question for the court was whether the publication could bear two meanings: one for that group of readers who read the headline and looked at the pictures, but did not read the article, and a second meaning for publishees who read and looked at all three, the headline, the pictures and the article.
Held: A plaintiff in defamation proceedings may not arbitrarily split off different parts of a publication without good reason. Words must be read in context, and as a whole. A potentially defamatory photograph was accompanied by text which should be read with it. It was accepted that the obviously defamatory headline and photographs were neutralised by the accompanying text.
The House set out the single meaning rule to the effect that for purposes of the law of libel a defamatory statement is taken to have a single meaning, to be determined by the judge or jury as appropriate, and this is so even if different readers would read the same statements as having different meanings. The statement must of course be read as a whole or, as it has been put, ‘the bane and the antidote must be taken together’.
Lord Nicholls said: ‘This is not to say that words in the text of an article will always be efficacious to cure a defamatory headline. It all depends on the context, one element in which is the lay out of the article. Those who print defamatory headlines are playing with fire. The ordinary reader might not be expected to notice curative words tucked away further down the article. The more so, if the words are on a continuation page to which a reader is directed. The standard of the ordinary reader gives [the Court] adequate scope to return a verdict meeting the justice of the case’. The proper approach is to determine what is the single meaning which the work conveys to the notional reasonable reader. ‘Whether the text of a newspaper article will, in any particular case, be sufficient to neutralise the defamatory implication of a prominent headline will sometimes be a nicely balanced question . . and will depend not only on the nature of the libel which the headline conveys and language of the text which is relied on to neutralise it, but also on the manner in which the whole of the relevant material is set out and presented.’ There is an artificiality about this approach since, especially in the case of a book, not all readers will read it from cover to cover.
Lord Bridge said: ‘[the essential basis on which Mr. Craig’s argument in support of the appeal rests is that, in appropriate circumstances, it is possible and legitimate to identify a particular group of readers who read only part of a publication which conveys to them a meaning injurious to the reputation of a plaintiff and that in principle the plaintiff should be entitled to damages for the consequent injury he suffers in the estimation of this group . . The first formidable obstacle which Mr. Craig’s argument encounters is a long and unbroken line of authority the effect of which is accurately summarised in Duncan and Neill on Defamation . . as follows: ‘In order to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the words of which the plaintiff complains it is necessary to take into account the context in which the words were used and the mode of publication. Thus a plaintiff cannot select an isolated passage in an article and complain of that alone if other parts of the article throw a different light on that passage.’
. . And ‘Whether the text of a newspaper article will, in any particular case, be sufficient to neutralise the defamatory implication of a prominent headline will sometimes be a nicely balanced question for the jury to decide and will depend not only on the nature of the libel which the headline conveys and the language of the text which is relied on to neutralise it but also on the manner in which the whole of the relevant material is set out and presented. But the proposition that the prominent headline, or as here the headlines plus photographs, may found a claim in libel in isolation from its related text, because some readers only read headlines, is to my mind quite unacceptable in the light of the principles discussed above.’

Lord Nicholls, Lord Bridge
Times 31-Mar-1995, Independent 31-Mar-1995, [1995] 2 AC 65, [1995] UKHL 6, [1995] 2 All ER 313, [1995] 2 WLR 450
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 12-Jan-1994
A libel in published photographs was capable of being remedied by the accompanying article. The court should look to the publication as a whole. . .
Cited – Chalmers v Payne 1835
Bane and Antidote Doctrine – Take them as One
The court considered the bane and antidote doctrine in defamation. B Alderson said: ‘But the question here is, whether the matter be slanderous or not, which is a question of the Jury; who are to take the whole together and say whether the result of . .
Approved – Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd CA 1968
Courts to Settle upon a single meaning if disputed
The ‘single meaning’ rule adopted in the law of defamation is in one sense highly artificial, given the range of meanings the impugned words sometimes bear. The law of defamation ‘has passed beyond redemption by the courts’. Where in a libel action . .

Cited 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 . .
Cited – Alan Kenneth McKenzie Clark v Associated Newspapers Ltd PatC 21-Jan-1998
The claimant was a member of Parliament and an author. The defendant published a column which was said to give the impression that the claimant had written it. It was a parody. The claim was in passing off.
Held: The first issue was whether a . .
Cited – George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2004
The claimant MP alleged defamation in articles by the defendant newspaper. They claimed to have found papers in Iraqi government offices after the invasion of Iraq which implicated the claimant. The claimant said the allegations were grossly . .
Cited – Mccann v Scottish Media Newspapers Ltd SCS 18-Feb-1999
Three articles which appeared in one edition of a newspaper had to be read together and treated as ‘constituting a whole’ for the purposes of determining meaning, where the first ended with a cross-reference to the second, and the second ended with . .
Cited – Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others QBD 14-Oct-2005
The court decided the issue of what meaning the words complained of would have been understood to bear. The ordinary reader of an article may well not think in legalistic terms such as ‘strong grounds to suspect’ or ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ . .
Cited – Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 30-Apr-2008
The court considered the availability of qualified privilege for reporting of statements made in parliament and the actionable meaning of the article, which comprised in part those statements and in part other factual material representing the . .
Cited – 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 – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd QBD 15-Jul-2009
ajinomoto_asdaQBD2009
The claimant said that the defendant’s characterisation of its own products as ‘Good for You’ by reference to a description saying that it did not include the claimant’s product as a component, was a malicious falsehood. The defendant sold other . .
Cited – Budu v The British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Mar-2010
budu_bbcQBD2010
The defendant sought to strike out the claimant’s action in defamation. It had reported that the police had withdrawn an employment offer to claimant after doubting his immigration status.
Held: The claims should be struck out. The articles . .
Cited – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Apr-2010
The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .
Cited – Kaschke v Osler QBD 13-May-2010
kschke_ostlerQBD10
The claimant sued in defamation as regards the defendant’s comments in his internet blog on her historical left wing political connections. She complained that they made a connection with terrorist activities. The defendant said that the article was . .
Cited – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd CA 2-Jun-2010
The claimant sold a sweetener ingredient. The defendant shop advertised its own health foods range with the label ‘no hidden nasties’ and in a situation which, the claimant said, suggested that its ingredient was a ‘nasty’, and it claimed under . .
Cited – Kaschke v Gray and Another QBD 23-Jul-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendants had published a web page which falsely associated her with a terrorist gang in the 1970s. The defendants now sought a strike out of her claim as an abuse saying that a similar . .
Cited – Lewis v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Others (Rev 1) QBD 31-Mar-2011
lewis_cpmQBD11
The defendant sought a ruling on the meaning of the words but using section 69(4) of the 1981 Act. The claimant solicitor was acting in complaints as to the unlawful interception of celebrity voicemails by agents of the press. There had been debate . .
Cited – Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 20-Jun-2011
The defendant sought clarification through the court as to the meanings inherent in the words complained of.
Held: The application failed. ‘I do not consider the ordinary reasonable reader would be perverse to conclude that the suspicions . .
Cited – Hamaizia and Another v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 21-Oct-2014
The two claimants, each convicted of serious offences of false imprisonment and violent assault, complained of a press release issued by the defendant which, they said accused them of involvement in a murder.
Held: The words complained of did . .
Cited – Economou v De Freitas QBD 27-Jul-2016
Failed action for defamation on rape allegations
The claimant had been accused by the defendant’s daughter of rape. He was never charged but sought to prosecute her alleging intent to pervert the course of justice. She later killed herself. The defendant sought to have the inquest extended to . .
Cited – NT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.78988

The court was asked for preliminary rulings as to meanings in a defamation action. She complained of articles regarding the failure of a business enterprise.
Held: The court’s task is well settled: ‘The judge should give the relevant article the natural and ordinary meaning(s) which it would have conveyed to ordinary reasonable readers reading the article once (that is to say, reasonable readers of the journal in question). Such a hypothetical reasonable reader should not be treated as either naive or unduly suspicious, but recognised as capable of reading between the lines. As is well known, however, he or she should not be treated as ‘avid for scandal’. Naturally, a judge should have regard to the impression the article has made upon himself in considering what impact it would have made on the hypothetical reasonable reader. It follows that the exercise is to a large extent that of forming an impression. It should not be obscured by over-elaborate analysis or by looking for hidden meanings.’
Applying that test, the claimant’s pleaded meanings were overstated. Furthermore the judge could see no Chase level 1 meaning as suggested.
Other statements about which complaint were made were statements of opinion or comment: ‘propositions to the effect that the Claimant has ‘lost all credibility’, or ‘will find it hard to carry on’, or has a reputation that is ‘undeserved’ are essentially matters of opinion. There can be no definitive answers and they are not verifiable matters of fact. An ordinary reasonable reader would recognise them as comments. ‘
Orders accordingly.

Eady J
[2010] EWHC 1544 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Skuse v Granada Television CA 30-Mar-1993
The claimant complained that the defendant had said in a television programme that he had failed to act properly when presenting his expert forensic evidence in court in the trial of the Birmingham Six.
Held: The court should give to the . .
Cited – Gillick v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another CA 19-Oct-1995
Words which were broadcast were capable of meaning that the Plaintiff’s behaviour had contributed to deaths. She was a campaigner against the giving of contraceptive advice to young girls.
Held: The statement was defamatory. The full test was: . .
Cited – Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres and Another CA 23-Jul-2001
The claimant appealed after closing her action for an alleged defamation by the respondents in a leaflet published by them. She challenged an interim decision by the judge as to the meaning of the words complained of.
Held: The leaflet made . .
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.417798

The claimant, a solicitor, sought an interim injunction to prevent the defendant defaming her on his website ‘solicitorsfromhell.co.uk’. The court gave its reasons for granting it. The website offered solicitors to have material about them withdrawn on payment of an administration fee.
Held: The claimant had demonstrated that none of the allegations made could relate to matters in which she had acted. Though the materials had been withdrawn, the defendant had given no indication that similar matters would not be published in future. Though it must be rare for a court to grant interim injunctions, this matter required it. Nothing at this stage constituted a finding against the defendant save as to costs.

Tugendhat J
[2010] EWHC 2436 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Moss and Coleman Solicitors v Kordowski Nom 1-Feb-2007
The claimant solicitors sought transfer to them of a domain name registered by the defendant using their name and criticising them. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bailey and Another v Kordowski QBD 1-Apr-2011
The defendant published a web-site ‘Solicitors From Hell’. Judgment had been entered against the defendant, as to a complaint falsely attributed to a client of the claimant. The defendant made a further application.
Held: ‘I asked Mr Kordowski . .
See Also – QRS v Beach and Another QBD 26-Sep-2014
The court gave its reasons for granting an interim injunction to prevent the defendants publshing materials on their web-sites which were said to harrass the claimants.
Held: Whilst it was important to protect the identity of the claimants, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.424888