The claimants, organisers of the Indian Premier cricket League, met with organisations in England seeking to establish a similar league in the Northern Hemisphere. A copy of a note came to the defendant, chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board, who in turn wrote to the President of the Indian Board in terms said by the claimant to be defamatory.
Held: The words complained of were capable of bearing one of the defamatory meanings alleged namely that of acting dishonourably and disloyally and not simply in a robust competitive manner. However, it is not enough that the words should damage the Claimant in the eyes of a section of the public only.

Lord Neuberger MR, Thomas, Moses LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 937
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Clay v Roberts 1863
Pollock CB considered the requirements for words to be considered defamatory and said: ‘There is a distinction between imputing what is merely a breach of conventional etiquette and what is illegal, mischievous, or sinful.’ . .
Cited – Myroft v Sleight 1921
The plaintiff, a trawler skipper sailing out of Grimsby, was a member of the Grimsby Fishermens’ Trades Union. A committee member was the defendant. The plaintiff was among those voting for a strike, and an unofficial strike was called. 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 – Tolley v J S Fry and Sons Ltd HL 1931
The plaintiff was an amateur golfer. The defendant, without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, published adverts showing the plaintiff and his caddy each with bars of the defendant’s chocolate protruding from their back pockets. The plaintiff . .
Cited – Tolley v J S Fry and Sons Ltd CA 1930
The plaintiff, a famous amateur golfer, had been shown in an advert by the defendants with a bar of their chocolate in his pocket. He claimed that this suggested that he had taken money for the advert for the endorsement, and that this was . .
Cited – Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres QBD 2002
The claimant asserted that the defendant had defamed her in a leaflet. The defendant asked the court to determine that the pamphlet did not carry a defamatory meaning.
Held: Eady J formulated the principles applicable when determining meaning: . .
Cited – Hughes v Architects’ Registration Council of the UK 1957
The plaintiff appealed against a finding of the defendant disciplinary body. Devlin J said: ‘There is something more important than the standing of a profession about which the council is naturally and properly concerned. There is the right of every . .
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 – 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 by:
Cited – Crow v Johnson QBD 16-Jul-2012
The claimant union leader sought damages in defamation against the mayor of London with regard to election leaflets. The defendant denied any defamatory meaning.
Held: The words in the leaflet that Mr Crow complained of were within the . .
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 – Uppal v Endemol UK Ltd and Others QBD 9-Apr-2014
The claimant alleged defamation by other contestants at the time when she was participating in the defendants’ TV show, Big Brother. The defendants had broadcast the material. The defendant now sought a ruling that the words complained of were not . .
Cited – 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 – 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 . .
Cited – Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others QBD 23-Nov-2015
Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.442420

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) whether there is an arguable case that Google Inc was a publisher of the comments, (2) whether, if it was a publisher, it would have an unassailable defence under section 1 of the 1996 Act, (3) whether any potential liability was so trivial as not to justify the maintenance of the proceedings, and (4) whether Google Inc would have a defence, if otherwise necessary, under regulation 19 of the 2002 Regulations.
Held: The judge had correctly dismissed three of the claimas on the basis that the words complained of were ‘mere vulgar abuse’. The court rejecte dthe claimant’s attempt to add further evidence, since it could with reasonable diligence have been obtained for the first hearing.
The respondent had acted within three days of the complaint to request removal of the material, and the blog author complied quickly.
The court considered that the respondent had meely provided the platform

Lord Dyson MR, Richards, Sullivan LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 68, [2013] WLR (D) 65, [2013] EMLR 14, [2013] 1 WLR 2151
Bailii, WLRD
Defamation Act 1996, Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 19
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 – Smith v ADVFN Plc and others QBD 25-Jul-2008
The claimant had brought multiple actions in defamation against anonymous posters on an online forum. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions. The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs . .
Cited – 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 . .
Appeal from – Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd QBD 2-Mar-2012
The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant company offering internet search facilities. The words complained of had been published in a blog, and in comments published on the blog.
Held: Jurisdiction should be declined. . .
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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
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 – Clift v Clarke QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimant sought disclosure of identities of posters to the defendant’s web-site.
Held: ‘In my view, the postings are clearly one or two-liners, in effect posted anonymously by random members of the public who do not purport, either by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.470970

Application to read unilateral statement in satisfaction of defamation claim.
Held: It follows from the terms of section 3 of the 1996 Act that the court should not regard as normal an oral hearing of submissions by a defendant that a claimant should be refused permission to make a unilateral statement. That would involve further submissions by a claimant, which would come close to the continuation of proceedings which is prohibited by s.3(2). The jurisdiction to refuse permission should be used only where there is ‘sufficient reason’, and the determination of what is or is not a sufficient reason should not require the court to determine what would have been issues in the action if it had not been settled.
She could read the statement.

Tugendhat J
[2014] EWHC 1170 (QB)
Bailii
Defamation Act 1996 2 3 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Barnet v Crozier CA 1987
The court considered an application by a third party to proceedings to prevent a statement being read out in open court in defamation proceedings. Justification had originally been pleaded by both defendants but, as part of a settlement with the . .
Cited – Winslet v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 3-Nov-2009
The parties had compromised a defamation claim with an offer of amends, but the claimant wished to read out a statement in accordance with the rules, being unhappy with the apology offered. The defendant objected, saying that she had no entitlement . .
Cited – Abu v MGN Ltd (Practice Note) QBD 2002
Eady J explained the background and legislative purpose of the 1996 Act provisions for offers of amends. . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Murray CA 15-May-2015
The newspaper had been sued in defamation, and it had been agreed that a statement would be made. The parties however differed as to the form of statement to be read out in court.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The allegation complained of is that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.523799

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: ‘(1) The court should give to the material complained of the natural and ordinary meaning which it would have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer watching the programme once. (2) The hypothetical reader (or viewer) 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. (3) While limiting its attention to what the defendant has actually said or written the court should be cautious of an over-elaborate analysis of the material in question. (4) A television audience would not give the programme the analytical attention of a lawyer to the meaning of a document, an auditor to the interpretation of accounts, or an academic to the content of a learned article. (5) In deciding what impression the material complained of would have been likely to have on the hypothetical reasonable viewer the court are entitled (if not bound) to have regard to the impression it made on them. (6) The court should not be too literal in its approach.’
Neill LJ: ‘It will be for the jury to decide what the words complained of actually meant in their context. At this stage I am satisfied that within the spectrum of meanings of which the words were reasonably capable is the meaning that Mrs Gillick was in some sense to blame for the girls’ deaths and therefore morally responsible to a culpable degree.’

Neill LJ
Times 20-Oct-1995, Independent 19-Oct-1995, [1996] EMLR 267, [1995] EWCA Civ 46
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Geenty v Channel Four Television Corporation and Jessel CA 13-Jan-1998
The claimant police officer appealed against dismissal of his claim in defamation.
Held: The words were capable of implicating the plaintiff in the neglect, they were also capable of implicating him in the accusation of maltreatment. The claim . .
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 – 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 – Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 30-Jun-2006
The claimant, a professional cyclist, sought damages in defamation, saying that the defendant newspaper had implied that he had taken performance enhancing drugs. The case was to be heard by judge alone. The court considered how to deal with the . .
Cited – 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 – 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 – 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 – Horlick v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jun-2010
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 . .
Cited – Wright v Gregson and Others QBD 1-Jul-2010
The defendant denied that the words complained of were bore the defamatory meaning alleged, and asked the court to rule accordingly and to strike out he claim. He complained of comments about his intentions for the use of money raised for charitable . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.80835

The claimant, an MP, claimed that a broadcast interview given by the defendant had been defamatory of him.

Bean J
[2013] EWHC 1435 (QB)
Bailii

Defamation

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510173

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 a senior Conservative of child sexual abuse.
Held: The text contained an innuendo that the claimant was involved, and was defamatory. As to innuendo: ‘An innuendo meaning (in the technical legal sense) is something more than a meaning that can be implied from the words complained. It is a meaning which can be implied from the words complained of, but only if the reader also knows other facts (which are not general knowledge). These are generally called extrinsic facts.
In respect of an innuendo meaning, a claimant must, in addition to identifying the meaning complained of, prove the extrinsic facts relied upon and prove that these facts were known to readers . . The claimant will have been defamed in the minds of those readers, but not in the minds of the readers who did not know the extrinsic facts.’
The reader wold have identified the claimant from the words, and understood ‘the words ‘innocent face’ as being insincere and ironical. There is no sensible reason for including those words in the Tweet if they are to be taken as meaning that the Defendant simply wants to know the answer to a factual question.’

Tugendhat J
[2013] EWHC 1342 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Jones v Skelton PC 1963
(New South Wales) Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest discussed how words subject to a claim in defamation should be read: ‘In deciding whether words are capable of conveying a defamatory meaning the court will reject those meanings which can only emerge as . .
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 – Fulham (orse Fullam) v Newcastle Chronicle and Journal Ltd and Another CA 1977
A local newspaper circulating in Teesside, where the claimant had been appointed deputy headmaster of a school, published an article in 1973 saying of the claimant that he was a former Roman Catholic priest who had left his parish in the Salford . .
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 – 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 . .
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 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 – Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation CA 5-Mar-2013
The claimant said that the defendant, in its Top Gear programme in a review of its car, caused it damage through malicious falsehood and defamation. They appealed against a finding that the words used were incapable of bearing the defamatory . .

Cited by:
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 . .
See Also – 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 – 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: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510090

If in a libel asterisks be put instead of the name of the party libelled, to make it actionable, it is sufficient that the party should be so designated, that those who know the Plaintiff, may understand that he is the person meant; and it is not necessary that all the world should understand it. But if witnesses, who stated that they understand that the plaintiff is the person, also say that they were enabled so to understand by perusal of another libel, with which the defendant had no concern, their evidence ordered to be laid out of the case. If a letter sent out as inducement be alleged to contain ‘the words and the matter following’, and when the letter is read in evidence, it is found to contain all that is stated in the declaration, and something more, this is no variance.
Abbott CJ directed the jury: ‘The question for your consideration is whether you think that the libel designates the plaintiff in such a way as to let those who knew him understand that he was the person meant. It is not necessary that all the world should understand the libel; it is sufficient if those who know the plaintiff can make out that he is the person meant.’
Abbott CJ
[1826] EngR 1155, (1826) 2 Car and P 307, (1826) 172 ER 138 (B)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.325919

Trial of preliminary issues in defamation claim.
Tugendhat J
[2011] EWHC 1519 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 9-May-2011
The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant newspaper after articles regarding his expenses claims whilst an MP. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.440884

In slander the words must be proved as they are laid.
[1653] EngR 1226, (1653) Cro Eliz 297, (1653) 78 ER 550 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.413533

Application by the Defendant to strike out the claim under CPR r 3.4(2) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Mr Justice Julian Knowles
[2020] EWHC 2162 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.653079

The claimant said that he had been wrongly described on the defendant’s website as one of two people guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. He had been found guilty only of a much less serious offence. The court now considered the meanings of the words complained of.
Warby J
[2019] EWHC 1439 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .

Cited by:
See Also – Spicer v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 6-Jul-2020
The claimant alleged defamation. He had been acquitted of a criminal offence and said that material published by the defendant continued to imply or assert his guilt of the offence. The defendant argued truth. The claimant now sought a strike out of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.638232

Mrs Justice Collins Rice
[2021] EWHC 2135 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.666702

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 why he had the duty and the public the interest that he alleged, given that there was a statutory procedure for complaints against solicitors. He said his site was for members of the public who were not succesful with that procedure. It was to get solicitors to make amends. It is obvious that the reciprocal duty and interest for common law qualified privilege does not exist in this case, and the conditions for a Reynolds defence of qualified privilege are equally lacking. There is no public interest in the publication of the words complained of, which express the personal grievances of Mr Line, and Mr Kordowski says himself that he did not check before he published. If he had done, what Mr Line has produced by way of evidence would not have given Mr Kordowski any better grounds for a Reynolds defence.’ and ‘Mr Kordowski is abusing the process of the court, seeking to cause the Claimants to incur costs which he says they have no prospect of recovering from himself. Whether his motive is to punish them for not meeting his demands for money, or for some other reason, is immaterial. ‘
Tugendhat J
[2011] EWHC 785 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)
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 – Farrall v Kordowski QBD 5-Oct-2010
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 . .

Cited by:
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.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.431657

[1834] EngR 968, (1834) 6 Car and P 588, (1834) 172 ER 1377 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.317644

The newspaper published an account of a trial for bigamy and referred to the prisoner as ‘Harold Newstead, 30-year-old Camberwell man’. The account was true as regards a Camberwell barman of that name, but not true in relation to the plaintiff, Harold Newstead who was aged about 30 and who assisted his father in a hair-dressing business at Camberwell Road, Camberwell. The plaintiff brought an action for libel against the newspaper. The jury were unable to agree on the first question: ‘would reasonable persons understand the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff?’ and assessed the plaintiff’s damages at one farthing.
The trial judge held that it was no defence to the action that the words complained of were intended to refer to, and were true of, an existing person who was not the plaintiff. No judgment was entered because the jury had not answered the question of whether a reasonable person would understand the words to refer to the plaintiff.
Held: The decision was affirmed which similarly rejected the defence put by the newspaper.
du Parcq LJ (Sir Wilfred Greene MR agreeing) observed: ‘In the present case, and in any similar case in which a defendant says that he was only speaking the truth of another person and not meaning to attack the plaintiff, it may well be right to direct the jury that a reasonable man must be aware of the possibility (it is for them to say in each case whether it amounts to a probability) that in any district there may be more than one person of the same name, and that, in considering how a reasonable man would understand the words, they must assume that he will read them with such care as may fairly be expected of him, not ignoring any parts of the description which are inapplicable to the plaintiff. If a defendant has been careful and precise, he may by his care avoid the risk of a successful action; but he cannot in my opinion escape liability merely by showing that he was careful and that his intentions were good.’
du Parcq LJ, Sir Wilfred Greene MR
[1939] 4 All ER 319, [1940] 1 KB 377, (1939) 109 LJKB 166, (1939) 162 LT 17, (1939) 6 TLR 130, (1939) 83 Sol Jo 942
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.653305

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 very substantial property in London. The defendant said this could not be defamatory. The claimant said this would make her appear dishonest.
Held: Certain elements of the claim should not proceed.
Eady J
[2010] EWHC 696 (QB), [2010] EMLR 18
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Fulham (orse Fullam) v Newcastle Chronicle and Journal Ltd and Another CA 1977
A local newspaper circulating in Teesside, where the claimant had been appointed deputy headmaster of a school, published an article in 1973 saying of the claimant that he was a former Roman Catholic priest who had left his parish in the Salford . .
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 – Slipper v British Broadcasting Corporation CA 1990
The plaintiff, a retired policeman was featured in a film about the Great Train Robbery. He sought to say that paper reviews of the film, and trailers worked to spread the libel, and should count in the assessment of damages against the defendant, . .
Cited – McManus and others v Beckham CA 4-Jul-2002
The claimant sought damages from the defendant who was a pop star, and had vociferously, publicly, and wrongly accused the claimant of selling pictures with fake autographs of her husband. The defendant obtained an order striking out the claim on . .
Cited – 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:
Appeal from – Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 23-Mar-2011
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 . .
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.406644

Otherwise innocent words can acquire a defamatory meaning from surrounding circumstances.
[1940] 2 KB 507
England and Wales
Cited by:
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.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.319878

The court looked at whether it was necessary to show actual damage to a reputation in a defamation case: ‘If words are used which impute discreditable conduct to my friend, he has been defamed to me, although I do not believe the imputation and may even know it is untrue’
Lord Goddard CJ
[1940] 2 KB 507
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – 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 – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.223355

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 was about 2000 and the membership of the British branch was twenty four. The article gave no names, but the plaintiff relied on his own prominence or representative character in the movement as establishing that the words referred to himself.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal failed.
Viscount Simon LC said: ‘where the plaintiff is not named, the test which decides whether the words used refer to him is the question whether the words such as would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to’ and ‘In the present case the statement complained of is not made concerning a particular individual, whether named or unnamed, but concerning a group of people spread over several countries and including considerable numbers. No facts were proved in evidence which could identify the plaintiff as the person individually referred to. Witnesses called for the Appellant were asked the carefully framed question, ‘To whom did your’ mind go when you read that article?’, and they not unnaturally replied by pointing to the Appellant himself. But that is because they happened to know the Appellant as the leading member of the Society in this country, and not because there is anything in the article itself which ought to suggest even to his friends that he is referred to as an individual.’
Viscount Simon, Lord Chancellor, Atkin, Thankerton, Russell of Killowen, Porter LL
[1944] UKHL 1, [1944] AC 196, [1944] AC 116
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Joseph Le Fanu, And Edward Bull v Joseph Malcomson And Others HL 27-Jun-1848
Though defamatory matter may appear only to apply to a class of individuals, yet if the descriptions in such matter are capable of being, by inuendo, shown to be directly applicable to any one individual of that class, an action may be maintained by . .
Cited – Eastwood v Holmes 1860
An article in a newspaper describing leaden figures ‘reported to have been found in the Thames,’ and sold as antiquities, as being of recent fabrication, and stigmatizing their sale as an attempt at deception and extortion, held not actionable ; the . .
Cited – Browne v Thomson and Co 1912
A newspaper article stated that in Queenstown instructions were issued ‘by the ‘Roman Catholic religious authorities that all Protestant shop ‘assistants were to be discharged.’ 7 pursuers averred that they were the sole persons who exercised . .

Cited by:
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 – Tilbrook v Parr QBD 13-Jul-2012
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 . .
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.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.248499

Trial of a preliminary issue in proceedings brought by Mr Farhan Junejo against New Vision TV Limited (‘NVTV’), seeking damages for libel. The single factual issue for the court to determine is whether NVTV published the words said to constitute the libel during the course of its broadcast of a news bulletin on its satellite television channel on Sky TV
Mr Justice Murray
[2021] EWHC 2366 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 September 2021; Ref: scu.667794

Claim for defamation arising out of a statement made by the Defendant, The Right Honourable Jeremy Corbyn MP during an interview on the Andrew Marr Show
Saini J
[2020] EWHC 1848 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.652807

Steyn DBE J
[2020] EWHC 1988 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.652809

[2021] EWHC 28 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.657321

Mrs Justice Steyn
[2020] EWHC 1741 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.652405

If, in an action for libel, the defendant, by his pleading, admits the publication, the plaintiff is still at liberty to shew the manner of the publication, with a view to the amount of damages.
[1835] EngR 562, (1835) 7 Car and P 163, (1835) 173 ER 72 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.316070

Mr Justice Soole
[2021] EWHC 2341 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.666716

Judgment after a trial of preliminary issues relating to the meaning of the words complained of in a claim for libel.
Mrs Justice Steyn DBE
[2021] EWHC 2296 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ware v French QBD 24-Feb-2021
Trial of preliminary issues. Saini J observed as to political discourse: ‘reasonable readers understand that political discourse is often passionate and is not as precise as, say, financial journalism. There is a particular need to avoid . .
Cited – Stocker v Stocker SC 3-Apr-2019
The parties had been married and divorced. Mrs S told M S’s new partner on Facebook that he had tried to strangle her and made other allegations. Mrs S now appealed from a finding that she had defamed him. Lord Kerr restated the approach to meaning . .
Cited – Hewson v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another QBD 22-Mar-2019
Procedure – Preliminary Issue Hearing – No Parties
Trial as to meaning of articles complained of.
Held: The court set out the procedure it was to adopt: ‘In this case, the parties consented to the Court determining the meaning, without a hearing, based on written submissions. Of course, their . .
Cited – Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd QBD 18-Jan-2019
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.666715

Trial of preliminary issues. Saini J observed as to political discourse: ‘reasonable readers understand that political discourse is often passionate and is not as precise as, say, financial journalism. There is a particular need to avoid over-analysis when determining the meaning of political speech.’
Saini J
[2021] EWHC 384 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
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.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.659220

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 be available.
Held: The piece was headed ‘Comment’ and all the facts referred to were matters in the public domain from the previous week. Comment did not have to avoid controversy or offence. The piece was a case of comment, and the defendant would be allowed to plead a defence of fair comment.
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
[2003] EWHC 1565 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Z (A Minor) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) CA 31-Jul-1995
The court was asked whether the daughter of Cecil Parkinson and Sarah Keays should be permitted to take part in a television programme about the specialist help she was receiving for her special educational needs.
Held: The court refused to . .
Cited – Edgington v Fitzmaurice CA 7-Mar-1885
False Prospectus – Issuers liable in Deceit
The directors of a company issued a prospectus, falsely stating that the proceeds were to be used to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to purchase horses and vans and to develop the trade of the company. In fact it was to pay off . .
Cited – Kemsley v Foot HL 25-Feb-1952
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. . .
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 – 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 – Clark v Norton 1910
The court explained the notion of ‘comment’ as ‘something which is or can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation, etc’. . .
Cited – Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers QBD 1958
The test of whether a comment amounted to fair comment, is whether the opinion, however exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, was honestly held by the person expressing it. Diplock J said: ‘Let us look a little more closely at the way in which the . .
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 – 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 . .
Applied – Nilsen and Johnsen v Norway ECHR 25-Nov-1999
The court considered a complaint that the Norwegian defamation law interfered with the applicant’s freedom of speech, and placed an unfair burden of proof on them in defending themselves. One of the defamatory phrases under consideration was . .
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 – Jerusalem v Austria ECHR 27-Feb-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; . .
Cited – Branson v Bower (No 1) CA 24-May-2001
The test of whether comment was fair comment is simply that of whether the opinion was honestly expressed, and on the basis of facts accurately stated. There is no special rule for imputations of corruption or dishonest motives. Nor is there any . .
Cited – Branson v Bower QBD 2001
The objective test for fair comment is whether it would be perverse for a jury to hold that the comments are not such that an honest person could express them in the light of the facts known by the Defendants at the date of publication. Hard-hitting . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.184228

The test of whether comment was fair comment is simply that of whether the opinion was honestly expressed, and on the basis of facts accurately stated. There is no special rule for imputations of corruption or dishonest motives. Nor is there any place for ideas borrowed from the law of negligence in assessing whether the comment had been fair. An author’s inference as to someone’s state of mind, or motivation, is capable of being comment and defended accordingly: ‘if a journalist makes inferences as to someone’s motives, that may be treated as the expression of an opinion even though the inference drawn may be to the effect that there exists a certain state of affairs (including a state of mind)’.
Latham LJ
Times 23-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 791, [2001] EMLR 32
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Branson v Bower QBD 2001
The objective test for fair comment is whether it would be perverse for a jury to hold that the comments are not such that an honest person could express them in the light of the facts known by the Defendants at the date of publication. Hard-hitting . .
Approved – Clarke v Norton 1910
(Victoria) The court considered what was fair comment: ‘More accurately it has been said that the sense of comment is ‘something which is or can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation etc.’ . .
Cited – Edgington v Fitzmaurice CA 7-Mar-1885
False Prospectus – Issuers liable in Deceit
The directors of a company issued a prospectus, falsely stating that the proceeds were to be used to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to purchase horses and vans and to develop the trade of the company. In fact it was to pay off . .

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 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 – Panday v Gordon PC 5-Oct-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) A senior politician had accused an opponent of pseudo-racism. The defendant asserted that he had a defence under the constitution, allowing freedom of political speech.
Held: The appeal failed. The statements were . .
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 . .
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.147565

Whether the defendant could rely on the defences of truth, honest opinion, and publication on matter of public interest which are provided for by ss 2, 3 and 4 of the Defamation Act 2013.
Held: No.
Warby LJ
[2021] EWCA Civ 713
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Riley v Sivier QBD 20-Jan-2021
Application to strike out defence claim of justification and for abuse. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 August 2021; Ref: scu.662481

[1850] EngR 954, (1850) 5 Exch 929, (1850) 155 ER 405
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 01 August 2021; Ref: scu.298301

The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin
[2021] EWHC 1797 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.666041

Tugendhat J
[2014] EWHC 1885 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 1-Aug-2013
The defamation claimant sought relief from sanctions imposed after a failure to comply with orders requiring him to discuss budgets and budgetary assumptions.
Held: The claimant had failed to deliver the required costs budget in time, and any . .
See Also – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
See Also – Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-Mar-2014
Application for discovery of documents held by a third party, the Police Complaints Commission) in a defamation action. . .

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.526438

The claimant had been awarded andpound;85,000 damages in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused him of cheating at football. The newspaper sought to appeal saying that the verdict was perverse and the defence of qualified privilege should have been allowed to go ahead.
Held: Despite the restricted scope of the appeal court’s ability to look at findings as to the meanings of the words complained of, it had a duty to consider it. Here the defendant had failed to establish each of the allegations it had made. The consent claimed had not in fact been given to publication of records. There had been several decisions on the facts in this case. In this case the jury’s decision was an affront to justice, and the decision should be set aside and judgment entered for the defendant.
Simon Brown LJ, Thorpe LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 33, [2001] EMLR 18, [2001] 2 All ER 437
Bailii
Defamation Act 1952 5
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Grobbelaar v Sun Newspapers Ltd CA 9-Jul-1999
With the new Civil Procedure Rules, it was no longer correct that a court could not exclude evidence which was relevant, on the grounds that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The court now has full power and discretion 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 – 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 – Regina v Savundranayagan and Walker CACD 1968
The accused claimed that his trial had been unfairly prejudiced by a television interview which took place before he had been charged with any offence, but when it was quite obvious that a charge was about to be brought against him. The publicity . .
Cited – O’Brien v Marquis of Salisbury QBD 1889
The court considered the jury’s verdict as to the meaning of the words complained of. Field J said: ‘If, therefore, as I think, the jury had only relevant evidence submitted to them and were properly directed as to the use they were to make of it, . .
Cited – Australian Newspaper Company v Bennett PC 1894
The Board considered the findings the jury as to the meaning of the words complained of: ‘It is not disputed that, whilst it is for the court to determine whether the words used are capable of the meaning alleged in the innuendo, it is for the jury . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd third Party intervening) HL 3-Aug-2000
Restitutionary Claim against Pofits from Breach
The author had written his book in breach of his duty of confidence. Having signed the Official Secrets Act, he accepted a contractual private law duty. After conviction as a spy, the publication of the book was in breach of the undertaking by not . .
Cited – Regina v Carr CCA 1956
Lord Goddard CJ considered the elements of the offence of obtaining property by fraud. In doing so he considered the position of a defendant who took a bribe but did not then carry out what he had ben paid to do and said: ‘It does not matter if he . .
Cited – Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (Trading As Washington DC) HL 28-Nov-2000
Copyright Claim: Was it Copied, and How Much?
The claimant sought to enforce its copyright in artwork for a fabric design Ixia, saying the defendant’s design Marguerite infringed that copyright. Two issues faced the House. Just what had been copied and if any, then did this amount amount to the . .
Cited – GKR Karate (UK) Limited v Porch, Yorkshire Post Newspaper, Holmes QBD 17-Jan-2000
The claimant sought damages alleging defamation. The judge ordered certain elements of the case to be heard first, and others, if necessary later. Although the case had been begun under the old rules, the new civil procedure regime gave the judge . .
Cited – GKR Karate (UK) Ltd v Yorkshire Post Newspapers Ltd and others (No.1) CA 11-Jan-2000
The claimants alleged defamation by the respondent in articles suggesting that they were not fit people to teach karate. The respondent claimed justification. A order had been made for trial of two preliminary issues against which order the . .
Cited – Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd (2) CA 1988
In considering what evidence can be used in mitigation of damages in defamation, it is necessary to draw a distinction between evidence which is put forward to show that the plaintiff is a man of bad reputation and evidence which is already before . .
Cited – Regina v Mills CACD 1968
Geoffrey Lane LJ considered what was meant by ‘a bribe’: ‘Realising what we say is obiter nevertheless we feel it right to say that in our judgment it is enough that the recipient takes the gift knowing that it is intended as a bribe. By accepting . .
Cited – Addis v Gramophone Company Limited HL 26-Jul-1909
Mr Addis was wrongfully and contumeliously dismissed from his post as the defendant’s manager in Calcutta. He sought additional damages for the manner of his dismissal.
Held: It did not matter whether the claim was under wrongful dismissal. . .
Cited – W v Egdell CA 9-Nov-1989
The plaintiff had been confined to a mental hospital after killing several people by shooting. He complained that when he was to be considered for release, his psychiatrist, the defendant had broken his duty of confidence by revealing his concerns . .
Cited – Watts and Co v Morrow CA 30-Jul-1991
The plaintiff had bought a house on the faith of the defendant’s report that there were only limited defects requiring repair. In fact the defects were much more extensive. The defendant surveyor appealed against an award of damages after his . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.200747

The defendant journalist appealed against a finding of defamation in a Russian radio broadcast to London.
Sir Andrew Morritt C, Laws, Rafferty LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1534
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon (Orse Tommy Robinson) QBD 22-Jul-2021
No Valid Evidence to Support Serious Accusations
The claimant was filmed being assaulted in the school playground. The film was published on the internet, and the defendant right wing politician re-published it, but falsely said that the claimant had himself been violent.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.450057

Mr Justice Nicol
[2020] EWHC 2911 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon (Orse Tommy Robinson) QBD 22-Jul-2021
No Valid Evidence to Support Serious Accusations
The claimant was filmed being assaulted in the school playground. The film was published on the internet, and the defendant right wing politician re-published it, but falsely said that the claimant had himself been violent.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.655925

The claimant said that distortions of a report of him being assaulted had been published by the defendant (otherwise Tommy Robinson) alleging violence on his part were defamatory. The court now determined the meanings of the publications.
Nicklin J
[2020] EWHC 934 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon (Orse Tommy Robinson) QBD 22-Jul-2021
No Valid Evidence to Support Serious Accusations
The claimant was filmed being assaulted in the school playground. The film was published on the internet, and the defendant right wing politician re-published it, but falsely said that the claimant had himself been violent.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.650202

Mr Justice Dingemans
[2018] EWHC 320 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Bokova v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Jul-2018
Nicklin J explained how circumstantial evidence might be admissible to prove the truth of a Chase level 2 meaning: ‘The ‘conduct rule’ and ‘circumstantial evidence’ have been further elucidated.
(i) While it is an essential requisite of a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.605796

Mr Justice Murray
[2021] EWHC 1723 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.663490

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 context of each Article as a whole.’
Nicklin J
[2019] EWHC 281 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – 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 . .
See Also – Greenstein v Campaign v Antisemitism CA 9-Jul-2021
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.633455

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, and where the claimant has to prove malice to defeat a plea of qualified privilege, the claimant must plead that the defendant (or identified representatives of a corporation) either knew the meaning (defamatory of the claimant) that an ordinary, reasonable reader is likely to give to the publication, or was reckless as to whether or not his words were likely to be understood in that meaning.
The pleaded particulars must be more consistent with the existence of malice than with its non-existence.
The case pleaded in malice against the board here fell short of the high standard required to establish malice.
Tugendhat J
[2008] EWHC 1263 (QB), [2009] EMLR 12
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Broadway Approvals Ltd v Odhams Press Ltd (No 2) CA 1965
A company’s mind is not to be assessed on the totality of knowledge of its employees. Malice was not to be established by forensic imagination however eloquently and subtly expressed.
Russell LJ said: ‘the law of libel seems to have . .
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 – Spencer v Sillitoe and Another CA 22-Oct-2002
Appeal from a decision of Morland J, who granted the defendants summary judgment under Civil Procedure Rule 24(2)(a)(2), finding that the claimant, Mr Spencer, had no real prospect of succeeding on his claim.
Held: Buxton LJ said: ‘Bearing in . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
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 – 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 – 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 – B v N and Another QBD 31-Jul-2002
There was as allegation of defamation by one doctor against another.
Held: Eady J said: ‘To participate in a publication in such a way as to be liable in accordance with the law of defamation is not, I should emphasise, to be equated with . .

Cited by:
See also – Bray v Deutsche Bank Ag QBD 18-Jun-2009
. .
Cited – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd CA 2-Jun-2010
Ajimoto-asdaCA10
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 – Greenstein v Campaign v Antisemitism CA 9-Jul-2021
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.270300

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 speech and I think also on the freedom of the press, when balancing it against the reputation of a single individual who, if wrong, can be compensated in damages.’ It was argued that the principles from American Cyanamid should be used to extend the Bonnard rule: ‘If the court were to accept this argument, the practical effect would I believe be that in very many cases the plaintiff would obtain an injunction, for on the American Cyanamid principles he would often show a serious issue to be tried, that damages would not be realistic compensation, and that the balance of convenience favoured restraining repetition of the alleged libel until trial of the action. It would thus be a very considerable incursion into the present rule which is based on freedom of speech.’
Griffiths LJ confirmed that ‘malice’ for the purposes of section 8(5) of the 1974 Act meant that the convictions had been ‘published with some irrelevant, spiteful or improper motive’
Griffiths LJ
[1984] 1 WLR 1160
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Restated – 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 – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
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 by:
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 – 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 – 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 . .
Cited – Greenstein v Campaign v Antisemitism CA 9-Jul-2021
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 . .
Cited – Greenstein v Campaign v Antisemitism CA 9-Jul-2021
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.219253

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
Tugendhat J
[2013] EWHC 585 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Thompson v James and Another (1) QBD 15-Mar-2013
. .
Cited – Greenstein v Campaign v Antisemitism CA 9-Jul-2021
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.471775

hearing of a trial of remedies and costs
Senior Master Fontaine
[2021] EWHC 1709 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.663492

Application to strike out parts of the defence.
Warby J
[2016] EWHC 665 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 July 2021; Ref: scu.562180

Master Thornett
[2021] EWHC 1494 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.663358