Category: Defamation

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another: CA 15 Jul 2008

The defendant appealed from a decision that the occasion of publication was not privileged. He sought Reynolds protection.
Held: Appeal dismissed.
[2008] EWCA Civ 921, [2009] EMLR 13
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 27-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 7-Mar-2006
The claimant resided in Romania, and sought damages for libel. The magazine had obtained an order for security for costs. An offer had been made to cover the sum ordered, and no stifling could now happen.
Held: Any order for security costs in . .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 12-Oct-2007
. .
Appeal From – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 23-Nov-2007
. .

Cited by:
See Also – 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.272243

Oldknow v Evans: QBD 1 Mar 2021

Request for identification by the Labour Party of the source of a leak from party papers of documents and their use in defamation of the claimant.
[2021] EWHC 1028 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.662419

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 the defence as an abuse of process, being a collateral attack on the acquittal.
Held: The major and overriding point is that Mr. Spicer seeks to draw support from his acquittal which fact, as a matter of law and logic, does not provide the support he places upon it. Given that a judge deciding the defendant’s claim of truth, must again decide on the actions of the claimant was the defence precluded by the doctrine of abuse? The question was answered in the negative. The parties now before the court were different, and ‘the jury’s verdict that Mr. Spicer was not guilty of the more serious charges which he faced did not amount to positive ‘factual findings or conclusions’ about the conduct by him which led to the criminal proceedings. It simply meant that his criminal liability was not established (which could have been for a number of reasons, none of which can be known with certainty).’
Saini J
[2020] EWHC 1778 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – 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 – Dexter Ltd v Vlieland-Boddy CA 2003
The court discussed the significance of Johnson v Gore Wood.
Clarke LJ said: ‘The principles to be derived from the authorities, of which by far the most important is Johnson v Gore Wood and Co [2002] 2 AC 1, can be summarised as follows:
See Also – Spicer v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 7-Jun-2019
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 . .
Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Cited – Amin v Director General of The Security Service and Others CA 26-Jun-2015
The claimant’s claims against the police had been struck out as a collateral attack on a criminal court decision.
Held: ‘If the former decision was made in criminal proceedings leading to a conviction, it is proper to focus attention on the . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow CA 11-Mar-2003
The Secretary of State attempted, in the course of director’s disqualification proceedings, to rely upon findings made against Mr Bairstow in an earlier wrongful dismissal action to which he had been a party but the Secretary of State not. The . .
Cited – Barnett-Waddington Trustees (1980) Ltd and Others v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ChD 12-Apr-2017
Second set of proceedings about a secured loan given to the claimants by the defendant bank. The bank, had discovered an external back to back swap (i.e. with an external counterparty), and asserted that it would be entitled to add the costs of . .
Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .
Distinguished – The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Weston and Another ChD 5-Sep-2014
The Secretary of State sought company director disqualification orders against the defendants saying they had been convicted of making false instruments. The Insolvency service had decided against such proceedings, and the Crown Court judge, when . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.652417

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 that he had drafted the apology in such a way as to repeat the libel complained of.
Held: The general principle on which common law qualified privilege was founded was the public interest frequently expressed as ‘the common convenience and welfare of society’ or ‘the general interest of society’. The parties had been unable to identify any previous occasion on which an apology had been found itself to be defamatory. Throughout the history of the development of the doctrine of priviege, the protection has always been described as arising where ‘the occasion of the publication affords a defence in the absence of express malice’. The word ‘occasion’ connotes the origin and circumstances of the publication of each individual defendant or third party, and in carrying through this exercise the position of each individual person involved in the publication requires separate consideration. Having regard to the origin and circumstances of the publication of this apology, the necessary conditions are satisfied by which protection should be obtained weer not satisfied.
Hirst LJ, Henry LJ, Sir Ralph Gibson
Times 22-Sep-1995, [1997] QB 650, [1995] EWCA Civ 45, [1996] 2 WLR 427, [1996] EMLR 1, [1996] 1 All ER 152
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Toogood v Spyring 1834
Qualified Privilege of Bona Fide Words Under Duty
The defence of qualified privilege arises where the statement in question was bona fide and without malicious intent to injure: ‘In general, an action lies for the malicious publication of statements which are false in fact, and injurious to the . .
Cited – Adam v Ward HL 1917
The plaintiff, Major Adam MP, falsely attacked General Scobell in a speech in the House of Commons, thus bringing his charge into the national arena. The Army Council investigated the charge, rejected it and directed their secretary, Sir E Ward, the . .
Cited – Horrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council.
Held: An allegation of malice is a very serious allegation and is generally tantamount to dishonesty. The House considered the circumstances under which a . .
Cited – Baker v Carrick 1894
Letters written by a solicitor in the performance of his or her duties to a client of the firm to a person with an appropriate interest in receiving it attract qualified privilege. Publication by a solicitor is protected by qualified privilege if . .
Cited – Mary Griffiths v Lewis 27-Apr-1846
Where a declaration in slander sets out words alleged to have been uttered, some in one discourse, and the remainder in a second discourse, and there are in form but two counts, each containing only the words alleged to have been uttered in one . .
Cited – Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited v Wright 1994
The Business Times in Singapore had published an apology in favour of a third party in respect of defamatory statements made by Mr Wright whose letter was previously published by the newspaper. The letter was found to be privileged when the letter . .
Cited – Express Newspapers v News (UK) plc 1990
If summary judgment is given to one party on his claim, it must also be given on a counterclaim made on the same basis by the defendant. The principle that a party to litigation cannot ‘approbate and reprobate’ (or ‘blow hot and cold’) can curtail a . .
Cited – London Association for Protection of Trade v Greenlands Ltd HL 1916
There had been publication in confidence to a single potential customer.
Held: When testing whether an occasion was one for qualified privilege, the court must look to all the circumstances.
Lord Buckmaster LC said: ‘Again, it is, I . .
Cited – Boxsius v Goblet Freres 1894
An ordinary business representative or adjunct of the associated agents, or any of them, cannot escape iability in defamation by regarding the communication with him as usual in the course of business. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) CA 12-Mar-2001
The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication.
Held: It is necessary for the defendants to . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.90335

Desmond v Bower: CA 20 Jul 2009

interlocutory appeal
[2009] EWCA Civ 857
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Desmond v Bower CA 7-Jul-2009
desmond_bowerCA2009
Application was made for a summons for a witness to attend and produce documents and a tape recording for the trial. The request had been rejected as an attempt to rely on similar fact evidence, and had been brought only late in the hearing.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.372636

McDonald Corporation v Steel: CA 1995

A defendant may not put on the record a plea of justification unless he believes it to be true: ‘It is true that a pleader must not put a plea of justification (or indeed a plea of fraud) on the record lightly or without careful consideration of the evidence available or likely to become available. But, as counsel for the plaintiffs recognised in the course of the argument, there will be cases where, provided a plea of justification is properly particularised, a defendant will be entitled to seek support for his case from documents revealed in the course of discovery or from answers to interrogatories.’ and ‘It will be seen from the wording of r 19(2) that, by necessary implication, evidence is admissible on an application to strike out a pleading on the ground that it is an abuse of the process of the court. Evidence is likewise admissible on an application under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. It follows therefore that there can be no objection in principle to an application being made to the court on the basis that a statement of claim or a defence should be struck out as an abuse of process because, as disclosed in the affidavits filed in support of the application, the claim or defence is incapable of proof.’
Neill LJ
[1995] EMLR 527, [1995] 3 All ER 615
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers QBD 19-Feb-2008
Complaint was made that an article was defamatory of the owner of Manchester United. The defendant now argued that the game was not worth the candle. The costs vastly exceeded any possible recovery, and it had openly offered vindication, and that . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.278224

Maxwell v Pressdram Ltd: CA 1987

The court was asked whether disclosure should be ordered in the context of the statutory privilege which was created by s.10 of the 1981 Act. The publisher defendant had deposed that it would justify the material. At trial, however, the defence of justification was abandoned and the judge said he would make a (strong) comment adverse to the defendant in the course of his charge of the jury, but he held that the witness need not reveal the source of his material.
Held: The appeal failed. A plea of negligence is insufficient to found a claim for exemplary damages. Some conscious wrongdoing is necessary.
Parker LJ made the point that ‘it is not sufficient merely to say that the information which is sought (to be obtained) is information which is relevant to the determination of an issue before the court. Were that so, it would always be possible to obtain an order for disclosure . ‘
References: [1987] 1 WLR 298, [1987] 1 All ER 656
Judges: Kerr LJ, Parker LJ
Statutes: Contempt of Court Act 1981 10
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
    Fair Coment on Political Activities
    The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
    (Times 29-Oct-99, Gazette 25-Nov-99, Gazette 17-Nov-99, , , [2001] 2 AC 127, [1999] UKHL 45, [1999] 4 All ER 609, [1999] 3 WLR 1010, [2000] EMLR 1, [2000] HRLR 134, 7 BHRC 289)
  • Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
    mosley_newsgroupQBD2008
    The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
    (, [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), [2008] EMLR 20)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194515

Braddock v Bevins: CA 1948

Mr. Bevins’ election address at a local election was the subject of qualified privilege in a defamation action.
Held: The court applied the classic requirements necessary to confer qualified privilege.
Lord Greene MR said: ‘A defamatory statement published by or on behalf of a candidate in any election to a local government authority or to Parliament shall not be deemed to be published on a privileged occasion on the ground that it is material to a question in issue in the election, whether or not the person by whom it is published is qualified to vote at the election.’ It was necessary for the welfare of society that there should be a frank exchange of information and opinions on matters relating to the exercise of the franchise by the electorate
References: [1948] 1 KB 580
Judges: Lord Greene MR
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
    Fair Coment on Political Activities
    The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
    (Times 29-Oct-99, Gazette 25-Nov-99, Gazette 17-Nov-99, , , [2001] 2 AC 127, [1999] UKHL 45, [1999] 4 All ER 609, [1999] 3 WLR 1010, [2000] EMLR 1, [2000] HRLR 134, 7 BHRC 289)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194514

Allbutt v General Council of Medical Education and Registration: CA 1889

The defendant had published a book with minutes of a meeting of the council recording that the plaintiff’s name had been removed from the medical register for infamous professional conduct. This followed an inquiry at which the plaintiff had been represented by counsel.
Held: The publication was privileged. The court had express regard to the nature of the tribunal, the character of the report, the interests of the public in the proceedings of the council and the duty of the council towards the public.
References: (1889) 23 QBD 400
Judges: Lopes LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Cox v Feeney 1863
    In an action for libel, consisting of a publication in a newspaper of a report of an inspector of charities under the Charitable Trusts Act, containing a letter, written some years before, reflecting on the plaintiff in hs management of a college: . .
    ((1863) 4 F and F 13, [1863] EngR 18, , (1863) 4 F and F 13, (1863) 176 ER 445)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
    Fair Coment on Political Activities
    The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
    (Times 29-Oct-99, Gazette 25-Nov-99, Gazette 17-Nov-99, , , [2001] 2 AC 127, [1999] UKHL 45, [1999] 4 All ER 609, [1999] 3 WLR 1010, [2000] EMLR 1, [2000] HRLR 134, 7 BHRC 289)
  • Cited – Webb v Times Publishing Co Ltd 1960
    The Times newspaper published a report of the criminal trial in Switzerland of a British subject. When sued in defamation they sought to rely upon the defence of fair reporting of judicial proceedings.
    Held: A blanket protection for reporting . .
    ([1960] 2 QB 535)
  • 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 . .
    (, [2006] UKHL 44, Times 12-Oct-06, [2006] 3 WLR 642, [2007] AC 359, [2007] Bus LR 291, [2007] EMLR 2, [2007] EMLR 14, [2006] 4 All ER 1279, 21 BHRC 471, [2006] HRLR 41)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194509

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 subject-matter, saying the administration of the poor-law was a matter of national concern, but that there was no duty to report charges made in the absence of the medical officer and without his having had any opportunity to meet them. The meeting was a privileged occasion for the speaker, but publication in the press was not. ‘This review of the authorities shows that, save where the publication is of a report which falls into one of the recognised privileged categories, the court must look at the circumstances of the case before it in order to ascertain whether the occasion of the publication was privileged. It is not enough that the publication should be of general interest to the public. The public must have a legitimate interest in receiving the information contained in it, and there must be a correlative duty in the publisher to publish, which depends also on the status of the information which he receives, at any rate where the information is being made public for the first time.’
Cockburn CJ said that ‘it is impossible to doubt that the administration of the poor-law is a matter of national concern’
Mellish LJ observed: ‘there is no reason why the charges should be made public before the person charged has been told of the charges, and has had the opportunity of meeting them . . Such a communication as the present ought to be confined in the first instance to those whose duty it is to investigate the charges.’
References: (1877) LR 2 CP 215
Judges: Mellish LJ, Fox LJ and Bramwell LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
    Fair Coment on Political Activities
    The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
    (Times 29-Oct-99, Gazette 25-Nov-99, Gazette 17-Nov-99, , , [2001] 2 AC 127, [1999] UKHL 45, [1999] 4 All ER 609, [1999] 3 WLR 1010, [2000] EMLR 1, [2000] HRLR 134, 7 BHRC 289)
  • Cited – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) CA 12-Mar-2001
    The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication.
    Held: It is necessary for the defendants to . .
    (, [2001] EWCA Civ 536)
  • Cited – 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 . .
    (, [2009] EWHC 2375 (QB), Times 23-Oct-09, [2010] EMLR 8)
  • 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. . .
    (, [2010] EWCA Civ 804, [2010] WLR (D) 187, [2010] EMLR 26, [2011] 1 WLR 153)
  • 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 . .
    (, [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)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194508

Davies v Snead: 1870

There are circumstances where a person is so situated that it ‘becomes right in the interests of society’ that he should tell certain facts to another, and so might have a defence of fair comment to a charge of defamation.
References: (1870) LR 5 QB 608
Judges: Blackburn J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
    Fair Coment on Political Activities
    The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
    (Times 29-Oct-99, Gazette 25-Nov-99, Gazette 17-Nov-99, , , [2001] 2 AC 127, [1999] UKHL 45, [1999] 4 All ER 609, [1999] 3 WLR 1010, [2000] EMLR 1, [2000] HRLR 134, 7 BHRC 289)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194505

Webb v Times Publishing Co Ltd: 1960

The Times newspaper published a report of the criminal trial in Switzerland of a British subject. When sued in defamation they sought to rely upon the defence of fair reporting of judicial proceedings.
Held: A blanket protection for reporting of foreign judicial proceedings was rejected, but in this case the defence did succeed. A plea of a fair and accurate report of foreign judicial proceedings was not demurrable.
References: [1960] 2 QB 535
Judges: Pearson J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Cox v Feeney 1863
    In an action for libel, consisting of a publication in a newspaper of a report of an inspector of charities under the Charitable Trusts Act, containing a letter, written some years before, reflecting on the plaintiff in hs management of a college: . .
    ((1863) 4 F and F 13, [1863] EngR 18, , (1863) 4 F and F 13, (1863) 176 ER 445)
  • Cited – Allbutt v General Council of Medical Education and Registration CA 1889
    The defendant had published a book with minutes of a meeting of the council recording that the plaintiff’s name had been removed from the medical register for infamous professional conduct. This followed an inquiry at which the plaintiff had been . .
    ((1889) 23 QBD 400)
  • 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 . .
    ([1949] AC 1)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
    Fair Coment on Political Activities
    The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
    (Times 29-Oct-99, Gazette 25-Nov-99, Gazette 17-Nov-99, , , [2001] 2 AC 127, [1999] UKHL 45, [1999] 4 All ER 609, [1999] 3 WLR 1010, [2000] EMLR 1, [2000] HRLR 134, 7 BHRC 289)
  • 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 . .
    ([1984] 1 QB 42, [1983] 2 All ER 311, [1983] 3 WLR 283)
  • Cited – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) CA 12-Mar-2001
    The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication.
    Held: It is necessary for the defendants to . .
    (, [2001] EWCA Civ 536)
  • 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 . .
    (, [2006] UKHL 44, Times 12-Oct-06, [2006] 3 WLR 642, [2007] AC 359, [2007] Bus LR 291, [2007] EMLR 2, [2007] EMLR 14, [2006] 4 All ER 1279, 21 BHRC 471, [2006] HRLR 41)
  • 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 . .
    (Gazette 12-Jun-96, Times 30-May-96, [1997] QB 123, , [1996] EWCA Civ 1291, [1996] 3 WLR 715, [1996] EMLR 413, [1996] 3 All ER 385)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194512

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 of law, but only in the sense that the decision thereon is reserved to the judge rather than to the jury: ‘It is not a question of law in the true sense.’
The ordinary reasonable reader is a layman, not a lawyer, and his capacity for implication is much greater than that of the lawyer.
Lord Morris said: ‘The question for the Judge at the end of the plaintiff’s case was whether there was evidence upon which the jury could (not would) decide in favour of the plaintiff. That in turn raised the question whether the jury could decide that some readers (having knowledge of certain circumstances) would reasonably understand the words as referring to the plaintiff. If no reasonable reader could have understood the words as referring to the plaintiff, then there would be nothing to be left to the jury.’
Lord Reid said that ‘some people may think that the law has gone too far’ in holding a publisher liable for a reference innuendo, if the statement concerned ‘applies to someone the publisher has never heard of.’
References: [1971] 1 WLR 1239, [1971] 2 All ER 1156
Judges: Lord Reid, Lord Morris
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Approved – Hough v London Express CA 1940
    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 . .
    ([1940] 2 KB 507)
  • 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 . .
    (, [1944] UKHL 1, [1944] AC 196, [1944] AC 116)

This case is 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 . .
    (Times 11-Feb-98, , [1998] EWCA Civ 10, [1998] EMLR 524)
  • 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 . .
    (, [2005] EWCA Civ 75, Times 14-Feb-05, [2005] EMLR 16, [2005] QB 946, [2005] 2 WLR 1614, [2005] EMLR 353)
  • Cited – 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 . .
    (, [2011] EWCA Civ 308, [2011] 1 WLR 1526, [2011] EMLR 19, [2011] HRLR 22)
  • 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 . .
    (, [2012] EWHC 1946 (QB))
  • Cited – Elliott v Rufus CA 20-Feb-2015
    elliott_rufusCA201502
    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 . .
    (, [2015] EWCA Civ 121)
  • 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 . .
    (HQ15D01507, , [2016] EWHC 1853 (QB), , , [2017] EMLR 4)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194331

Plymouth Mutual Co-operative Soceiety and Industrial Society Ltd v Traders’ Publishing Organisation: 1908

Interrogatories in defamation proceedings will not be allowed to request from a newspaper the source of the journalist’s information where there may be considerable public interest.
References: [1908] 1 KB 403
Judges: Vaughan Williams LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Adam v Fisher 1914
    There were two possible reasons why a newspaper might be treated differently from another organisation in defamation proceedings, in that discovery of the source of information will not be ordered. First, it might be expected that it was the purpose . .
    ([1914] 39 TLR 288)
  • Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
    The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
    Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
    ([1981] AC 1096, [1981] 1 All ER 452, [1980] 3 WLR 774)
  • Cited – Lyle-Samuel v Oldhams Ltd 1919
    The rule that in defamation proceedings, a newspaper defendant should not be obliged in interrogatories to disclose the name of an informant is so well established as to be beyond argument. ‘All I say is that this is an action of libel against the . .
    ([1920] 1 KB 135, [1918-19] All ER Rep 779)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193369

Smith v Baker: QBD 20 Oct 2020

Claim and counterclaim for defamation and harassment relating to publications posted on twitter (in respect of the claim) and blogposts (in respect of the counterclaim).
References: [2020] EWHC 2776 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Master Sullivan
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 October 2020; Ref: scu.655155

Kemsley v Foot: CA 1951

kemsley_footCA51
References: [1951] 2 KB 34
Coram: Birkett LJ, Somervell LJ
Ratio: The plaintiff complained that the defendant had defamed him with a headline to an article ‘Lower than Hemsley’ which otherwise had no connection with the plaintiff. He said it suggested that he was a byword for poor journalism.
Held: Criticism of a newspaper owner as to the presentation of news by the paper was to be treated on a par with criticism of a book or play. The critic is not prevented from relying upon fair comment as a defence only because he does not particularise the conduct of which he complains. He need only state plainly the subject-matter of the complaint.
Birkett LJ said: ‘It is clear, therefore, and indeed it was not contended otherwise, that ALL the facts need not be stated, but when the matter is submitted to the judgment of a jury particulars of the facts relied on must be supplied’
and ‘I do not think it is possible to lay down any rule of universal application. If, for example, a defamatory statement is made about a private individual who is quite unknown to the general public, and he has never taken any part in public affairs, and the statement takes the form of comment only and is capable of being construed as comment and no facts of any kind are given, while it is conceivable that the comment may be made on a matter of public interest, nevertheless the defence of fair comment might not be open to a defendant in that case. It is almost certain that a naked comment of that kind in those circumstances would be decided to be a question of fact and could be justified as such if that defence were pleaded. But if the matter is before the public, as in the case of a book, a play, a film, or a newspaper, then I think different considerations apply. Comment may then be made without setting out the facts on which the comment is based if the subject-matter of the comment is plainly stated. This seems to me to accord with good sense and the true public interest.’
Somervell LJ identified two cases where a publisher may not be obliged to set out the factual basis of his comment in detail: where the subject matter was a work of art placed before the public for comment, and where the subject was a public figure subject in any event to vigorous discussion and where a detailed recital of the facts would be unwelcome. In contradistinction: ‘At the other end of the scale one may imagine a comment reflecting on the integrity of a subordinate official, whose activities had so far received no publicity, where it might be held that the defence was not available unless the facts relied on were substantially set out or indicated.’
This case cites:

  • Approved – Carr v Hood QBD ([1808] 1 Camp 354)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Kemsley v Foot HL ([1952] AC 345)
    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 Hemsley’ was defamatory. The defendant pleaded fair comment.
    Held: The article . .
  • Cited – Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD ([2006] 3 All ER 357, Bailii, [2006] EWHC 320 (QB), Times 29-Mar-06, [2007] QB 580)
    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 (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 600, [2007] EMLR 21, [2007] EMLR 571, [2007] 4 All ER 319, [2001] 1 WLR 579)
    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 – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 2863 (QB))
    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 (Bailii, [2010] UKSC 53, UKSC 2009/0210, SC Summary, SC, [2010] WLR (D) 310, WLRD, [2010] 3 WLR 1791, Bailii Summary, [2011] 1 All ER 947, [2011] ICR 1, [2011] EMLR 11)
    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 (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 763 (QB))
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 18 March 2019
Ref: 240314

Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others: HL 22 Jan 1998

Taylor_SFOHL1998
References: Times 04-Nov-1998, [1998] UKHL 39, [1999] 2 AC 177, [1998] 4 All ER 801, [1998] 3 WLR 1040
Links: House of Lords, Bailii
Coram: Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton
Ratio: The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later trial of others. The plaintiff sought damages in defamation.
Held: The documents which had been prepared for a criminal investigation, and which were disclosed as part of prosecution case, but not relied on in that prosecution, may only be used by defence for the purposes of that trial. They cannot be used to form the basis of an action for defamation. The documents were disclosed under an obligation imposed on the prosecution. The absolute immunity rule ‘is designed to encourage freedom of speech and communication in judicial proceedings by relieving persons who take part in the judicial process from the fear of being sued for something they say.’ The immunity extended also to statements made out of court which could fairly be said to be part of the process of investigating crime. The court referred in this connection to investigators and the prosecuting officials with whom they are required to communicate.
Lord Hope (with whom Lord Hutton agreed) observed: ‘I do not think that it is possible to overstate the importance, in the public interest, of ensuring that material which is disclosed in criminal proceedings is not used for collateral purposes’.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘I find it impossible to identify any rational principle which would confine the immunity for out of court statements to persons who are subsequently called as witnesses. The policy of the immunity is to enable people to speak freely without fear of being sued, whether successfully or not. If this object is to be achieved, the person in question must know at the time he speaks whether or not the immunity will attach. If it depends upon the contingencies of whether he will be called as a witness, the value of the immunity is destroyed. At the time of the investigation it is often unclear whether any crime has been committed at all. Persons assisting the police with their inquiries may not be able to give any admissible evidence; for example, their information may be hearsay, but none the less valuable for the purposes of the investigation. But the proper administration of justice requires that such people should have the same inducement to speak freely as those whose information subsequently forms the basis of evidence at a trial.
When one turns to the position of investigators, it seems to me that the same degree of necessity applies. It would be an incoherent rule which gave a potential witness immunity in respect of the statements which he made to an investigator but offered no similar immunity to the investigator if he passed that information to a colleague engaged in the investigation or put it to another potential witness. In my view it is necessary for the administration of justice that investigators should be able to exchange information, theories and hypotheses among themselves and to put them to other persons assisting in the inquiry without fear of being sued if such statements are disclosed in the course of the proceedings.’
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Taylor Monarch Assurance Plc v Director of Serious Fraud Office, McKenzie, Law Society Rogerson CA (Gazette 24-Sep-97, Times 27-Aug-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2163)
    Qualified privilege attached to defamatory documents which had been prepared as part of a criminal investigation. For the court to allow an action would be approve a form of parasitic attack on the trial. . .
  • Cited – Mahon v Rahn QBD (Unreported, 19 June 1996)
    Directors of a London firm of stockbrokers brought libel proceedings against two Swiss bankers.
    Held: The absolute immunity which is given to both witnesses and potential witnesses extends to all those taking part in a criminal investigation . .
  • Cited – Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2) CA (Times 14-Jun-00, Gazette 29-Jun-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 185, [2000] 1 WLR 2150, [2000] EMLR 873, [2000] Po LR 210, [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 1, [2000] 4 All ER 41)
    The defendant’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings . .
  • Cited – Munster v Lamb CA ((1883) 11 QBD 588)
    Judges and witness, including police officers are given immunity from suit in defamation in court proceedings.
    Fry LJ said: ‘Why should a witness be able to avail himself of his position in the box and to make without fear of civil consequences . .
  • Cited – Watson v M’Ewan HL ([1905] AC 480, [1905] UKHL 1, Bailii, (1905) 13 SLT 340, (1905) 7 F (HL) 109)
    A claim was brought against a medical witness in respect of statements made in preparation of a witness statement and similar statements subsequently made in court. The appellant was a doctor of medicine who had been retained by the respondent in . .
  • Cited – Home Office v Hariette Harman HL ([1983] 1 AC 280, [1982] 2 WLR 338, [1982] 1 All ER 532, (1982) 126 SJ 136)
    The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
    Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
  • Cited – Evans v London Hospital Medical College and Others ([1981] 1 WLR 184, [1981] 1 All ER 715)
    The defendants employed by the first defendant carried out a post mortem on the plaintiff’s infant son. They found concentrations of morphine and told the police. The plaintiff was charged with the murder of her son. After further investigation no . .
  • Cited – Regina v Ward (Judith) CACD (Gazette 15-Jul-92, [1993] 1 WLR 619, (1993) 96 Cr App Rep 1)
    The defendant had been wrongly convicted of IRA bombings. She said that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence.
    Held: The prosecution’s forensic scientists are under a common law duty to disclose to the defence anything they may . .
  • Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL (Independent 30-Jun-95, Times 30-Jun-95, [1995] 2 AC 633, Bailii, [1995] UKHL 9, [1995] 2 FLR 276, [1995] 3 All ER 353, [1995] 3 WLR 152, [1995] 3 FCR 337, (1995) 7 Admin LR 705, 94 LGR 313, [1995] Fam Law 537, [1995] 3 FCR 337)
    Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case, only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give . .
  • Cited – Regina v Keane CACD (Independent 16-Mar-94, Times 15-Mar-94, [1994] 1 WLR 746, [1994] 2 All ER 478, (1994) 99 Cr App R 1)
    Public Interest Immunity Certificates for the protection of informants must be used only carefully. The Crown must specify the purpose of the public interest immunity certificate. The principles on disclosure in Ward are not limited to scientific . .
  • Cited – Mahon and Another v Rahn and Others (1) CA (Times 12-Jun-97, [1998] QB 424)
    Two company directors sued Swiss bankers who had responded to enquiries from the police in London. The charges which followed had been dismissed, and the directors sued in defamation, seeking to rely upon the materials sent to the police.
  • Cited – Regina v Brown (Winston) HL (Gazette 03-Sep-97, House of Lords, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 33, [1998] AC 367, [1997] 3 All ER 769, [1997] 3 WLR 447, [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 66)
    The victim had been stabbed outside a nightclub. Two witnesses identified the defendant. The defendants complained that evidence had not been disclosed to them.
    Held: There is no duty at common law on the prosecution to warn the defence of . .
  • Cited – Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd ([1991] 1 WLR 756)
    A party and his legal representatives receiving documents under a process of discovery is under an implied undertaking to use those documents for the purposes of those proceedings only. It is an obligation imposed by operation of law by virtue of . .
  • Cited – Ex parte Coventry Newspapers Ltd CA ([1993] QB 278, [1993] 1 All ER 86, [1992] 3 WLR 916)
    Documents had been disclosed by the Police Complaints Authority under court order for an appeal against conviction. They related to an investigation of the conduct of police officers who had given evidence against the appellant. The newspaper, now . .
  • Cited – Marrinan v Vibart CA ([1963] 1 QB 528, [1962] 3 All ER 380)
    Two police officers gave evidence in a criminal prosecution of others, that the plaintiff, a barrister, had behaved improperly by obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty and subsequently gave similar evidence at an inquiry before . .
  • Cited – Roy v Prior HL ([1971] AC 470, [1970] 2 All ER 729)
    The court considered an alleged tort of maliciously procuring an arrest. The plaintiff had been arrested under a bench warrant issued as a result of evidence given by the defendant. He sued the defendant for damages for malicious arrest.
    Held: . .
  • Cited – Bennett v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn (Times 24-Oct-97, (1997) 10 Admin LR 245)
    Police and prosecuting authority have no inherent immunity from suit for tort of misfeasance in public office if the breach is properly made out. Immunity extends to statements made or agreed to be made out of court ‘if these were clearly and . .
  • Cited – Silcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA (Times 09-Jul-96, [1996] 8 Admin LR 633, Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1311)
    The claimant had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock. The only substantial evidence was in the form of the notes of interview he said were fabricated by senior officers. His eventual appeal on this basis was not resisted. He now appealed . .
  • Cited – Attorney-General’s Guidelines Practice Note (Criminal Evidence: Unused Material) ([1982] 1 All ER 734)
    . .
  • Cited – Regina v Jeffries CACD ([1968] CLY 661)
    . .
  • Cited – Regina v Ward (Judith) CACD (Gazette 15-Jul-92, [1993] 1 WLR 619, (1993) 96 Cr App Rep 1)
    The defendant had been wrongly convicted of IRA bombings. She said that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence.
    Held: The prosecution’s forensic scientists are under a common law duty to disclose to the defence anything they may . .
  • Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Shannon ([1974] CLY 546)
    . .
  • Cited – Regina v Maguire CACD ([1992] 2 All ER 433, [1992] QB 936, (1992) 94 Cr App Rep 133 , [2006] EWCA Crim 1239)
    The defendant, convicted of murder, had died. It later came to light that materials with the prosecution forensic team had not been disclosed by the prosecution.
    Held: The Home Secretary could make a reference to the Appeal court despite the . .
  • Cited – Regina v Davis; Regina v Rowe; Regina v Johnson CA (Gazette 10-Mar-93, [1993] 1 WLR 613, [1993] 97 Cr App R 110)
    Guidance was given on the procedures to be followed for applications for non-disclosure for public interest immunity. The court identified three types of case. In the first, and most frequent case the prosecution must notify the defence of the . .
  • Cited – Regina v Brown (Winston) CACD (Independent 22-Jun-94, Gazette 31-Aug-94, Times 20-Jun-94, [1994] 1 WLR 1599)
    The Crown Prosecution Service was under no obligation to disclose evidence which might be damaging to a Defendant’s witness’ credibility. The Attorney General’s disclosure guidelines do not have the force of law and need updating. . .
  • Cited – D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children HL ([1978] AC 171, [1977] 2 WLR 201, [1977] 1 All ER 589, Bailii, [1977] UKHL 1)
    Immunity from disclosure of their identity should be given to those who gave information about neglect or ill treatment of children to a local authority or the NSPCC similar to that which the law allowed to police informers.
    Lord Simon of . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Darker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police HL (Gazette 17-Aug-00, Times 01-Aug-00, House of Lords, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 44, [2001] AC 435, [2000] 3 WLR 747)
    The plaintiffs had been indicted on counts alleging conspiracy to import drugs and conspiracy to forge traveller’s cheques. During the criminal trial it emerged that there had been such inadequate disclosure by the police that the proceedings were . .
  • Cited – Preston Borough Council v McGrath CA (Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 151)
    The defendant had been investigated for fraud against the claimant. He had disclosed documents to the police, but now complained at their use in the civil proceedings against him.
    Held: The document had not been given to the police under . .
  • Appealed to – Taylor Monarch Assurance Plc v Director of Serious Fraud Office, McKenzie, Law Society Rogerson CA (Gazette 24-Sep-97, Times 27-Aug-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2163)
    Qualified privilege attached to defamatory documents which had been prepared as part of a criminal investigation. For the court to allow an action would be approve a form of parasitic attack on the trial. . .
  • Cited – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a Firm of Solicitors) CA (Times 15-Jun-98, Gazette 01-Jul-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 958, [1999] QB 966, [1998] 3 All ER 541, [1998] 3 WLR 925)
    A firm of solicitors sought an order for anonymity in their proceedings against the LAB, saying that being named would damage their interests irrespective of the outcome.
    Held: The legal professions have no special part in the law as a party . .
  • Cited – Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening) CA ([2005] 4 All ER 609, Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 226, Times 14-Mar-05, [2006] 1 WLR 3083)
    The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the . .
  • Cited – A, Re Application for Judicial Review QBNI (Bailii, [2001] NIQB 21)
    The applicant, who feared for his life if identified, sought the release to him of materials discovered by the police in searching premises associated with a loyalist paramiliitary group. He thought that they might include information sourced form . .
  • Cited – General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 1390, Times 31-Oct-06, [2007] 2 WLR 286, (2006) 92 BMLR 51, [2007] 1 All ER 1, [2006] 3 FCR 447, [2007] LS Law Medical 1, [2007] Fam Law 214, [2007] ICR 701, [2007] QB 462, 92 BMLR 51, [2007] 1 FLR 1398, [2006] 44 EG 196)
    The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .
  • Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL (Times 02-Mar-07, Bailii, [2007] UKHL 7, [2007] 3 All ER 269, [2007] Crim LR 731, [2007] 2 Cr App Rep 6, [2007] 2 AC 270)
    The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
    Held: The practice . .
  • Cited – Buckley v Dalziel QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 1025 (QB), Times 07-Jun-07, [2007] 1 WLR 2933, [2007] EMLR 624, [2007] EMLR 23)
    There was a heated dispute between neighbours, culminating in some generous or perhaps over-generous pruning by the claimant of the defendant’s trees and shrubs on the boundaries. The defendants reported the matter to the police. Both Mr and Mrs . .
  • Cited – Westcott v Westcott QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 2501 (QB))
    The claimant said that his daughter in law had defamed him. She answered that the publication was protected by absolute privilege. She had complained to the police that he had hit her and her infant son.
    Held: ‘the process of taking a witness . .
  • Cited – Westcott v Westcott CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 818, Times 27-Aug-08, [2009] QB 407, [2009] 2 WLR 838, [2009] 1 All ER 727, [2009] EMLR 2)
    The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
  • Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD ([2009] EMLR 18, Bailii, [2009] EWHC 411 (QB))
    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 – White v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 825 (QB))
    The claimant doctor sued in defamation for letters written by the defendants to the Fitness to Practice Directorate. She now sought to appeal against a finding that she could not rely upon one letter which had come to her attention through . .
  • Cited – Nunn v Suffolk Constabulary and Another Admn (Bailii, [2012] EWHC 1186 (Admin))
    The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure of the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team.
    Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is . .
  • Cited – Smart v The Forensic Science Service Ltd CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 783)
    On a search of his house, the police found a bullet cartridge on the claimant’s property. It was sent for testing but due to a mistake it was reported as a live cartridge. The prosecution was only dropped after some months when the mistake was . .
  • Cited – Tchenguiz v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 1409)
    The appellant challenged an order of the Commercial Court refusing permission for documents disclosed in English litigation to be used in litigation proceedings in Guernsey. The principal issue is whether the judge correctly weighed up the . .
  • Cited – Singh v Moorlands Primary School and Another CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 909, [2013] IRLR 820, [2013] WLR(D) 306, [2013] 1 WLR 3052, [2013] ICR 1158, [2013] CP Rep 46)
    The claimant was a non-wite head teacher, alleging that her school governors and local authority had undermined and had ‘deliberately endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation’ against her as an Asian . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 07 August 2018
Ref: 135006

Hutchinson v Proxmire; 26 Jun 1979

References: [1979] USSC 139, [1979] 443 US 111
Links: Worldlii
Ratio: (United States Supreme Court) The petitioner had been funded by the state to carry out research on aggression in certain animals, particularly monkeys. He complained of criticism of his work decsribing it as wasteful
Held: Efforts to influence executive agencies are not privileged acts. Not every public employee is a public official.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina v SC (Bailii, [2010] UKSC 52, Bailli Summary, [2010] WLR (D) 311, WLRD, UKSC 2010/0195, SC Summary, SC, [2011] 1 Cr App R 22, [2010] 3 WLR 1707, [2011] 1 All ER 805)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 179, [2014] EMLR 17, [2014] 3 All ER 36, [2014] 1 QB 839, [2014] WLR(D) 98, [2014] QB 839, [2014] 2 WLR 1228, WLRD)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 31-Jul-16
Ref: 427748

Evans v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd; 12 Feb 1993

References: [1993] ACTSC 7
Links: Austlii
Coram: Higgins J
Ratio:(Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory) It was not defamatory to say of a career civil servant that his career had been aided by patronage of senior politicians, since it did not impute any active or improper seeking of favours on the plaintiff’s part: The question is, however, whether to say of a person that he has been the beneficiary of such a system, with the capacity to be used to favour the less well qualified candidates, defames the candidate . . In Renouf [(1977) 17 ACTR 35] (supra), Blackburn CJ accepted that it was defamatory of a senior public servant . . ‘to say that he publicly demonstrated his sympathy with a political party with a view to receiving a higher appointment from the Government formed by that party’. . That imputation was accepted as defamatory by reason of the implication that the plaintiff had attempted to openly demonstrate his political acceptability to the Government. That allegation assumed, of course, that the Government in question made such appointments on the ground of political acceptability . . In the present case, the article depicts the plaintiff as a favoured recipient of preferment. It is not suggested he improperly sought it, as was the defamatory allegation in Fairbairn v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1977) 21 ACTR 1 . . The article did not over-state the role of the Prime Minister in the plaintiff’s career advancement, but it did not impute any unfair or improper conuct to him nor suggest he did not merit such advancement. It did not convey the imputation pleaded. That would require the article to assert that the plaintiff’s qualifications and experience were less important than the favour of the Pdrime Minister. It clearly does not do that.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Miller -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 700 (QB))
    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: . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 09-Jun-16
Ref: 406675

Gutnick v Dow Jones; 28 Aug 2001

References: [2002] HCA 56, [2001] VSC 305
Links: Austlii
Coram: Callinan J
Ratio (High Court of Victoria) Callinan J said: ‘A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main attractions to users of it. And any person who gains access to the Internet does so by taking an initiative to gain access to it in a manner analogous to the purchase or other acquisition of a newspaper, in order to read it. . . If a publisher publishes in a multiplicity of jurisdictions it should understand, and must accept, that it runs the risk of liability in those jurisdictions in which the publication is not lawful and inflicts damage.’
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Gutnick -v- Dow Jones (Austlii, [2002] HCA 56)
    (High Court of Australia) The Court rejected a challenge, in the context of Internet libel, to the applicability of such established principles as that vouchsafed in Duke of Brunswick: ‘It was suggested that the World Wide Web was different from . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Gutnick -v- Dow Jones (Austlii, [2002] HCA 56)
    (High Court of Australia) The Court rejected a challenge, in the context of Internet libel, to the applicability of such established principles as that vouchsafed in Duke of Brunswick: ‘It was suggested that the World Wide Web was different from . .
  • Cited – Mardas -v- New York Times Company and Another QBD (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 3135 (QB))
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 26-Apr-16
Ref: 220027

Amann v Damm; 22 May 1860

References: [1860] EngR 756, (1860) 8 CB NS 597, (1860) 144 ER 1300
Links: Commonlii
The defendant, bona fide believing that the plaintiff, who was a clerk to one M, a customer of the defendant’s. and who had been sent to the defendant’s shop bv M had while there stolen a box from an inner room, went to M., and, after telling him of his loss, intimated his suspicion of the plaintiff, saying, ‘There was no one else in the room, and he must have taken it:’-Held, that the communication was privileged by the occasion. Where slanderous words are uttered in a foreign language, the declaration should aver that the persons in whose presence they were spoken understood the language.
Last Update: 03-Feb-16 Ref: 285595

De Crespigny v Wellesley; 9 Feb 1829

References: [1829] 5 Bing 392, [1829] EngR 350, (1829) 5 Bing 392, (1829) 130 ER 1112
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Best CJ
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.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stern -v- Piper and Others CA (Gazette 12-Jun-96, Times 30-May-96, [1997] QB 123, Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1291, [1996] 3 WLR 715, [1996] EMLR 413, [1996] 3 All ER 385)
    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 – Watkin -v- Hall ([1868] LR 3 QB 396, (1868) 9 B&S 279, [1868] 37 LJQB 125, [1868] 18 LT 561, [1868] 32 JP 485, [1868] 16 WR 857, [1861-73] All ER 275)
    The plaintiff was chairman of a railway company. He claimed in defamation after the defendant said there was a rumour of his having failed, thus explaining the fall in the company’s share value.
    Held: It was no defence to say that it was true . .
  • Cited – Lewis -v- Daily Telegraph Ltd HL ([1964] AC 235)
    The House considered a libel action arising out of an article headlined ‘Fraud squad probe firm’.
    Held: The House defined the general principles for the ascertainment of the meaning of words in defamation proceedings. The test to be applied is . .
  • Cited – Stern -v- Piper and Others CA (Gazette 12-Jun-96, Times 30-May-96, [1997] QB 123, Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1291, [1996] 3 WLR 715, [1996] EMLR 413, [1996] 3 All ER 385)
    The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt.
    Held: A defamation was not to be . .
  • Cited – Curistan -v- Times Newspapers Ltd CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 432, Times 06-May-08, [2009] 2 WLR 149, [2008] 3 All ER 923, [2008] EMLR 17)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 09-Nov-15 Ref: 270506

Mann v O’Neill: 1997

References: (1997) 71 ALJR 903
Courts should be reluctant to extend the immunity given to witnesses: ‘the general rule is that the extension of absolute privilege is viewed with the most jealous suspicion, and resisted, unless its necessity is demonstrated’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – General Medical Council -v- Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 1390, Times 31-Oct-06, [2007] 2 WLR 286, (2006) 92 BMLR 51, [2007] 1 All ER 1, [2006] 3 FCR 447, [2007] LS Law Medical 1, [2007] Fam Law 214, [2007] ICR 701, [2007] QB 462, 92 BMLR 51, [2007] 1 FLR 1398, [2006] 44 EG 196)
    The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .

Watson v McEwan: HL 1905

References: [1905] AC 480
Coram: Earl of Halsbury LC
Privilege is given to those making witness statements in court proceedings from subsequent actions for defamation.
The Earl of Halsbury said: ‘It appears to me that the privilege which surrounds the evidence actually given in a Court of justice necessarily involves the same privilege in the case of making a statement to a solicitor and other persons who are engaged in the conduct of proceedings in Courts of justice when what is intended to be stated in a Court of justice is narrated to them – that is, to the solicitor or writer to the Signet. If it were otherwise, I think what one of the learned counsel has with great cogency pointed out would apply – that from time to time in these various efforts which have been made to make actual witnesses responsible in the shape of an action against them for the evidence they have given, the difficulty in the way of those who were bringing the action would have been removed at once by saying, ‘I do not bring the action against you for what you said in the witness-box, but I bring the action against you for what you told the solicitor you were about to say in the witness-box.’ If that could be done the object for which the privilege exists is gone, because then no witness could be called; no one would know whether what he was going to say was relevant to the question in debate between the parties. A witness would only have to say, ‘I shall not tell you anything; I may have an action brought against me to-morrow if I do; therefore I shall not give you any information at all.’ It is very obvious that the public policy which renders the protection of witnesses necessary for the administration of justice must as a necessary consequence involve that which is a step towards and is part of the administration of justice – namely, the preliminary examination of witnesses to find out what they can prove. It may be that to some extent it seems to impose a hardship, but after all the hardship is not to be compared with that which would arise if it were impossible to administer justice, because people would be afraid to give their testimony.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Buckley -v- Dalziel QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 1025 (QB), Times 07-Jun-07)
    There was a heated dispute between neighbours, culminating in some generous or perhaps over-generous pruning by the claimant of the defendant’s trees and shrubs on the boundaries. The defendants reported the matter to the police. Both Mr and Mrs . .
  • Cited – Westcott -v- Westcott QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 2501 (QB))
    The claimant said that his daughter in law had defamed him. She answered that the publication was protected by absolute privilege. She had complained to the police that he had hit her and her infant son.
    Held: ‘the process of taking a witness . .
  • Cited – Lincoln -v- Daniels CA ([1962] 1 QB 237, [1961] 3 WLR 866, [1961] 3 All ER 740, (1961) 105 Sol Jo 647)
    The defendant claimed absolute immunity in respect of communications sent by him to the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by the plaintiff, a Queen’s Counsel.
    Held: Initial communications sent to the secretary of the Bar Council . .
  • Cited – Iqbal -v- Mansoor and Others QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2261 (QB))
    The claimant sought the disapplication of the limitation period in order to pursue the defendant solicitors, his former employers, in defamation. . .

Telnikoff v Matusevitch; 24 May 1989

References: Unreported, 24-May-89
Coram: Drake J
The plaintiff claimed in libel. Drake J upheld a submission that there was no case to go before the jury, in respect that (1) any reasonable jury properly directed would be bound to sustain the defence of fair comment, and (2) there was no evidence of express malice.
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Telnikoff -v- Matusevitch CA ([1991] 1 QB 102)
    The court considered the element of malice in a defamation defence: ‘If a piece of evidence is equally consistent with malice and the absence of malice, it cannot as a matter of law provide evidence on which the jury could find malice. The judge . .
  • At first instance – Telnikoff -v- Matusevitch HL ([1992] 2 AC 343, Bailii, [1992] UKHL 2)
    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 . .

Child v Affleck Et Ux; 13 May 1829

References: [1829] EngR 459, (1829) 9 B & C 403, (1829) 109 ER 150
Links: Commonlii
In an action for libel, it appeared that the defendant, with whom the plaintiff had lived as servant, in answer to inquiries respecting her character, wrote a letter imputing misconduct to her whilst in that service, and after she left it; and the defendant also made similar parol statements to two persons that had recommended the plaintiff to her: Held, that neither the letter itself nor the parol statements proved malice, and that, consequently the letter was a privileged communication, and the plaintiff not entitled to recover.

The Duke Of Brunswick v Harmer; 21 Jun 1850

References: [1850] EngR 681, (1850) 3 Car & K 10, (1850) 175 ER 441
Links: Commonlii
If JH and MY be registered at the stamp office as ‘the sole proprietors’ of a newspaper, ‘that is to say, the said JH as legal owner as mortgagee, and MY as owner of the equity of redemption,’ this is sufficient to fix JH as a proprietor of the newspaper in an action for a libel contained in it. In an alleged libel, the writer suggested the propriety of the plaintiff ‘withdrawing into his own natural and sinister obscurity,’ the word ‘natural’ being printed in italics. Held, that the plaintiff could not ask a witness what he understood by the word ‘natural’ thus printed, but that the jury might look at the paper and form their opinion as to the meaning.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Duke of Brunswick -v- Harmer QBD ((1849) 14 QB 185, [1849] EngR 915, Commonlii, (1849) 117 ER 75)
    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 . .

Mary Griffiths v Lewis; 27 Apr 1846

References: [1846] EngR 593, (1846) 8 QB 841, (1846) 115 ER 1091
Links: Commonlii
Where a declaration in slander sets out words alleged to have been uttered, some in one discourse, and the remainder in a second discourse, and there are in form but two counts, each containing only the words alleged to have been uttered in one discourse, the declaration will be treated as containing only two counts, though each of such two counts contains a separate allegations of the uttering of different words in the particular discourse. Therefore, if in each count there be any words set out which are slanderous, judgment for plaintiff will not be arrested after verdict, though the damages be general and some of the separate allegations recite only words not actionable.
The original publisher of a defamatory statement had no privilege to repeat it when asked for an explanation.
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Watts -v- Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling & Lom CA (Times 22-Sep-95, [1997] QB 650, Bailii, [1995] EWCA Civ 45, [1996] 2 WLR 427, [1996] EMLR 1, [1996] 1 All ER 152)
    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 . .

Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton; 17 Apr 2008

References: [2008] NSWCA 66
Links: Austlii
Coram: Spigelman CJ Hodgson JA McColl JA
Austlii (Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal) DEFAMATION – nature of- actual disparagement of the plaintiff’s reputation – reputation includes general character and standing and trade, business or professional reputation – DEFAMATION – what is defamatory – requires publication likely to cause ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general, to think the less of plaintiff – DEFAMATION – nature of injury to business reputation – whether to be determined by reference to whether publication likely to cause ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general, to think the less of plaintiff – JURY – directions to jury as to standards by which to determine whether an imputation injures plaintiff’s trade, business or professional reputation
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dee -v- Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 924 (QB))
    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 . .

Bolton v O’Brien; 11 Jan 1885

References: (1885) QB Div vol XVI LR Ir 97
Coram: May CJ, O’Brien J
Ratio 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.’
Ratio 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.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dee -v- Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 924 (QB))
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 20-Apr-16
Ref: 408770

Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert Cheng; 13 Nov 2000

References: [2001] EMLR 777, [2000] 3 HKLRD 418, [2000] HKCFA 35
Links: hklii
Coram: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Sir Denys Roberts NPJ and Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead NPJ
(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 hearer should be in a position to judge for himself how far the comment was well founded’ and
‘The purpose for which the defence of fair comment exists is to facilitate freedom of expression by commenting upon matters of public interest. This accords with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. And it is in the public interest that everyone should be free to express his own, honestly held views on such matters, subject always to the safeguards provided by the objective limits mentioned above. These safeguards ensure that defamatory comments can be seen for what they are, namely, comments as distinct from statements of fact. They also ensure that those reading the comments have the material enabling them to make up their own minds on whether they agree or disagree’.
The defence of honest comment is available even if the comment was made with intent to injure, as where a politician seeks to damage his political opponent.
The comment must be on a matter of public interest, recognisable as comment, be based on true or privileged facts, indicate the facts on which the comment is based, and ‘must be one which could have been made by an honest person, however prejudiced he might be, and however exaggerated or obstinate his views.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Myerson -v- Smith’s Weekly ((1923) 24 SR (NSW) 20)
    (New South Wales) The court considered the distinction between fact and comment. Ferguson J said: ‘To say that a man’s conduct was dishonourable is not comment, it is a statement of fact. To say that he did certain specific things and that his . .
  • Cited – Gardiner -v- Fairfax ((1942) 42 SR (NSW) 171)
    Complaint was made that the plaintiff had been libelled in the defendant’s book review.
    Held: A publication is defamatory in nature if it ‘is likely to cause ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general, to think the less of [the . .
  • Cited – London Artists Ltd -v- Littler CA ([1969] 2 QB 375, [1968] 1 WLR 607, Bailii, [1968] EWCA Civ 3, [1969] 2 All ER 193)
    The defence of fair comment on matters of public interest is not to be defined too closely. Lord Denning MR said: ‘Whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going . .
  • Cited – Kemsley -v- Foot HL ([1952] AC 345)
    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 Hemsley’ was defamatory. The defendant pleaded fair comment.
    Held: The article . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Keays -v- Guardian Newspapers Limited, Alton, Sarler QBD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 1565 (QB))
    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 – Panday -v- Gordon PC (Bailii, [2005] UKPC 36, PC)
    (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 – Lowe -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD ([2006] 3 All ER 357, Bailii, [2006] EWHC 320 (QB), Times 29-Mar-06, [2007] QB 580)
    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 (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 600, [2007] EMLR 21, [2007] EMLR 571, [2007] 4 All ER 319, [2001] 1 WLR 579)
    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 – Blackwell -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd and others QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 3098 (QB))
    The claimant sought damages saying that a newspaper article published by the defendant was defamatory. He was the manager of Leeds United Football club, and was said to have lost the dressing room.
    Held: The claimant was entitled to summary . .
  • Cited – CC -v- AB QBD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 3083 (QB), [2007] EMLR 11, [2007] Fam Law 591, [2007] 2 FLR 301)
    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 – Thornton -v- Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 2863 (QB))
    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 . .
  • Limited – Spiller and Another -v- Joseph and Others SC (Bailii, [2010] UKSC 53, UKSC 2009/0210, SC Summary, SC, [2010] WLR (D) 310, WLRD, [2010] 3 WLR 1791, Bailii Summary, [2011] 1 All ER 947, [2011] ICR 1, [2011] EMLR 11)
    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 . .

Crookes v Wikimedia Foundation Inc; 27 Oct 2008

References: 2008 BCSC 1424
Links: Canlii
Coram: Kelleher J
(Supreme Court of British Columbia) The claimant sought damages in defamation from an article published by the defendant on the internet. The court was asked whether the contents of an article to which a hyper-link was provided should be taken into account in identifying the claimant.
Held: Whilst hyperlinking could sometimes found an action for defamation, in this case, the publcation of the link did not amount to publcation in defamation.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Islam Expo Ltd -v- The Spectator (1828) Ltd and Another QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 2011 (QB))
    The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant in respect of its web-site. It said that the use of hyperlinks to third party sites was sufficient to identify the claimant and associate it with the allegations made.
    Held: The . .

Crampton v Nugawela; 23 Dec 1996

References: [1997] Aust Torts Reports 81-416, (1996) 41 NSWLR 176, [1996] NSWSC 651
Links: Austlii
Coram: Mahoney ACJ, Handley JA, Giles AJA
(Supreme Court of New South Wales) Defamation – Damages – Aggravated and general damages – Economic loss with respect to professional standing – Principles relevant to assessment of damages for defamation – Relationship to damages for serious personal injury
When considering the likelihood of repetition of a libel once published, the court spoke of ‘the grapevine effect’.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cairns -v- Modi CA ([2012] WLR(D) 302, Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1382, WLRD, Gazette)
    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 . .