The respondent was leader of Dacorum Council. The claimant sought planning permission. It was alleged that after the meeting the defendant told another councillor that the owner of claimant was ‘a crook and is only in business for a fast buck.’ Other similar allegations were made.
[2001] EWCA Civ 913
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.201178
A newspaper published an anonymous letter containing statements that the pursuer, a salaried official, was unfit for his post as a teacher in a public school. It was argued that the ratepayers and inhabitants of the neighbourhood had an interest and a right to know the contents of what was published. There was no room for the defence of privilege, so there was no need for the pursuer to plead malice. The court did not need to decide whether a member of the public, in attacking any person holding any office under any public body, was entitled to the defence of privilege. It was difficult to see what duty or right there was on the part of a member of the public, as such, to criticise the conduct of a public servant who was in the public employment.
Lord McLaren
(1892) 19 R 383
Scotland
Followed – Brims v Reid and Sons 1885
A newspaper had published an anonymous letter concerning the fitness for office of the pursuer who was seeking re-election as a member of a town council and to the public office of Dean of Guild. The publisher refused to disclose the name of the . .
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.194523
The Court of Appeal was able to hear an appeal from a judge’s decision to discharge the jury, after prejudicial comments by plaintiff’s counsel in his closing address to the jury. There is a distinction from what would happen in a criminal trial, although in this case the appeal was dismissed.
Gazette 16-Sep-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1309
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.144788
The Court of Appeal should always be reluctant to reverse an interlocutory finding of a judge at first instance that the words alleged to be libellous are capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged.
Brook, Stuart-Smith LJJ, Sir John Knox
[1998] EWCA Civ 1269, [1999] QB 931, [1998] EMLR 780, [1999] 1 WLR 327
England and Wales
Cited – Morosi v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd 1980
(Court of Appeal of New South Wales) A radio broadcast dwelled at some length upon rumours concerning Ms Morosi (describing her as ‘the most notorious women’s name in the country’), but then went on to say that there was no truth in any of these . .
Cited – Carlton Communications Plc and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 9-Nov-2001
The defendant had published a series of articles alleging that certain documentaries made by the claimants were fakes. The claimants sought damages for libel. The defendants asserted that the words complained of were capable of not referring to the . .
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 – Rath v Guardian News and Media Ltd and Another QBD 5-Mar-2008
The Claimant requested summary judgment on the fair comment defence to his defamation claim which was pleaded by the Defendant: ‘the Claimant’s conduct in relation to the false claims and criticisms has contributed in large part to a madness which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.144748
Preliminary findings as to meaning of alleged defamatory words.
The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin
[2020] EWHC 977 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650207
The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin
[2020] EWHC 966 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650205
Defendant’s strike out application
Mr Justice Tugendhat
[2014] EWHC 293 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.521514
Sir David Eady
[2014] EWHC 647 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.522328
Mr Justice Tugendhat
[2014] EWHC 662 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.522562
(New Zealand) Blair J said: ‘On the authorities – see Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers 1929] 2KB 331 and Tolley v. JS Fry and Sons Ltd. [1930] 1 KB 467 – innocent matter may be given a defamatory meaning by readers with knowledge of facts not known to the writer. But these cases do not lay down that a writer of innocent matter can by reason of certain facts coming into existence subsequent to publication of his innocent matter become liable in damages for libel because persons learning of that subsequent material are able to read into the innocent matter a defamatory meaning.’
Blair J
[1941] NZLR 913
England and Wales
Approved – Grappelli v Derek Block (Holdings) Ltd CA 20-Jan-1981
Stephane Grappelli, an renowned musician, employed the defendants to promote him. They purported to arrange various concerts, but did so without his authority. When they were cancelled, they told the venue owners that they were cancelled because the . .
Cited – 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: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.442251
Application for leave to appeal out of time against an interim order in defamation claim.
Held: The defendant had not shown any good cause for setting the judge’s case management directions aside, nor that he should recuse himself.
May LJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 436
England and Wales
See Also – Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another v Steinberg SCCO 27-Mar-2003
. .
See Also – Englefield v Steinberg (No 2) SCS 20-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Pritchard Englefield v Steinberg and Steinberg ChD 30-Jul-2004
Enforcement of charging order absolute. . .
See Also – Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another CA 3-Mar-2005
The defendant appealed dismissal of his defence to an action in defamation.
Held: The court proceeded in his absence, discerning two grounds of appeal from the papers. He had suggested that he awaited pro bono representation but was by . .
See Also – Steinberg v Englefield and Another CA 5-Jul-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.200885
(1892) 19 R 482
Scotland
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.194521
The defendant sought a retrial of his action for defamation.
Held: The judge’s directions on meaning as to the respective contentions was correct, and also the allocation of the burden of proof. Whilst the court had reservations about the direction with regard to the plea of justification, the court was not to be required to give detailed guidance where the facts were agreed, but where Section 5 of the 1952 Act is relied upon a careful explanation of its meaning and effect is required. Where a misdirection is found, the party supporting the verdict must, by evidence, show that it did not affect the result, and then it must be shown that the effect was substantial. The misdirection if any in this case did not support such a conclusion, and the appeal was dismissed.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Otton, Sir Brian Neill
[1998] EWCA Civ 1137
England and Wales
Cited – Edwards v Bell 1824
The justification of the sting of a libel is sufficient even if it does not extend to every epithet or detail in the words complained of.
Held: ‘As much must be justified as meets the sting of the charge, and if anything be contained in the . .
Cited – Neville v Fine Art HL 1897
Lord Halsbury said: ‘Where you are complaining of a non-direction of the Judge, or that he did not leave a question to the jury, if you had the opportunity of asking him to do it and you abstain from asking for it, no Court would ever have granted . .
Cited – Moore v News of the World CA 1972
An article was published which the plaintiff said left readers with the false apprehension that she had written it. She claimed under the statutory tort of false attribution.
Held: The judge was correct to direct the jury to make up their . .
Cited – Polly Peck PLC v Trelford CA 1986
The plaintiffs complained of the whole of one article and parts of two other articles published about them in The Observer. The defamatory sting was that Mr Asil Nadir (the fourth plaintiff) had deceived or negligently misled shareholders, . .
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 – Anthony v Halstead 1877
Where there has been a misdirection in a civil jury trial, it is for the party asserting that the judgment should stand to demonstrate supported by the evidence that any error did not affect the decision reached. . .
Cited – Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited (2) QBD 23-Apr-1999
Evidence of Reputation Admissible but Limited
The plaintiff had brought an action for damages for defamation. The defendant wished to amend its defence to include allegations that the plaintiff had courted litigation by his action.
Held: A judge assessing damages should be able see the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.144616
The appellant in instructing his agent, the respondent, wrote him a letter containing defamatory statements about certain persons into whose hands the letter got through the agent’s partner negligently dropping it, when it was picked up by a third party and the contents communicated. The appellant was sued by these persons for defamation and had to pay pounds 1769.
The appellant sued the respondent for damages for breach of his duty to keep his instructions secret. The jury found that there was a breach of duty on the respondent’s part and that the actions of damages and consequent loss to the appellant were the natural and probable consequence of the respondent’s negligence, and assessed the damages at pounds 650. The presiding judge entered judgment for the respondent on the grounds ( a) that he had no duty to keep the letter secret, and ( b) that ex turpi causa non oritur actio.
Held that the respondent had a duty to keep the letter secret; that he negligently failed in his duty; that consequently an action lay against him; but that the appellant’s loss was not the natural and probable consequence of the respondent’s negligence; and that only nominal damages therefore were due.
Lords Finlay, Dunedin, Sumner, Parmoor, and Wrenbury
[1920] UKHL 646, 58 SLR 646
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.631531
His Honour Judge Keyser QC
[2014] EWHC 701 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.522610
The court considered applications for case management.
Tugendhat J
[2012] EWHC 693 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.452456
Gray J
[2003] EWHC 1219 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.444311
The claimant brought actions in libel after reports by his manager on his work performance. The defendant sought summary dismissal and a ruling that the words complained of were not defamatory.
Sharp J
[2010] EWHC 3057 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.426531
[2001] EWCA Civ 664
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.201103
The claimant appealed against the strike out of his claim in defamation against the defendant. The action was delayed pending the outcome of the Reynolds appeal to the Hous of Lords.
Aldous, Judge, LJJ, Cresswell J
[2001] EWCA Civ 834
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.201025
In defamation proceedings the defendant had invited one issue to be left to the jury. After losing the case, the defendant sought to appeal, arguing that the jury’s verdict was perverse. It was held that such an appeal amounted to an abuse of process, and if allowed, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The issue was central to the judgment. The admission that the issue was referred to the jury by the defendant’s mistake, because there was only one proper verdict, but that could not allow the reversal of an express request to the judge to put that issue to the jury.
Chadwick LJ said: ‘The purpose for which the power to order the payment of costs on an indemnity basis is conferred, as it seems to me, is to enable the court, in a case to which CPR 36.21 applies, to address the element of perceived unfairness which arises from the fact that an award of costs on the standard basis will, almost invariably, lead to the successful claimant recovering less than the costs which he has to pay to his solicitor.’
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Longmore
Times 19-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 933, [2001] 4 All ER 861, [2002] CP Rep 9, [2002] 1 WLR 934, [2001] EMLR 35, [2001] 2 Costs LR 295
England and Wales
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (2) CA 26-May-1999
The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be . .
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 4) CA 3-Jul-2001
The fact that a defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing a case after an offer of settlement, was not a reason for not awarding costs to be paid on an indemnity basis. Such an award had no penal element, and did not first require any . .
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Limited; Clarke and Neil (1) CA 25-Nov-1998
. .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others CA 7-Jun-2000
The new civil procedure rules did not change the basic rules of evidence. The old rule prevented a party putting in evidence a witness statement which he knew conflicted substantially with the case he wished to place before the jury, and then be . .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and others CA 12-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 4) CA 3-Jul-2001
The fact that a defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing a case after an offer of settlement, was not a reason for not awarding costs to be paid on an indemnity basis. Such an award had no penal element, and did not first require any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.83584
Mrs Justice Steyn DBE
[2021] EWHC 504 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.659689
Preliminary issue as to the meaning of the publications which are the subject of the Claimant’s claim for libel.
Mr Justice Nicol
[2018] EWHC 1105 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.616160
Mr Justice Dingemans
[2014] EWHC 784 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.522635
Mr Justice Eady
[2013] EWHC 196 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.470844
Gray J
[2003] EWHC 2442 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.444312
The claimant sought re-instatement of his defamation claim after it had been stayed on the basis that he had repeatedly failed to comply with requirements to correct his pleadings and that the claim had only nominal if any value.
Tugendhat J
[2010] EWHC 2819 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.425974
The claimant, a former Anglican priest, sued in defamation. The defendant argued that the claim was non-justiciable since it would require the court to adjudicate on matters of faith and religious doctrine.
Held: The claim could not be heard.
Gray J said: ‘It is well established . . that the court will not venture into doctrinal disputes or differences. But there is authority that the courts will not regulate issues as to the procedures adopted by religious bodies or the customs and practices of a particular religious community or questions as to the moral and religious fitness of a person to carry out the spiritual and pastoral duties of his office.’
The issues of the case, ‘cannot be adapted so as to circumvent the insuperable obstacle placed in the way of a fair trial of this action by the fact that the court must abstain from determining questions which lie at the heart of the case’.
Gray J
[2003] EWHC 1960 (QB)
England and Wales
Cited – General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v Overtoun HL 1904
Craigdallie stated settled law: ‘My Lords, I disclaim altogether any right in this or any other civil court of this realm to discuss the truth or reasonableness of any of the doctrines of this or any other religious association, or to say whether . .
Cited – Regina v Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, Ex parte Wachmann 1992
A local rabbi sought judicial review of the declaration of the Chief Rabbi, following an investigation into allegations of adultery with members of his congregation, that he was religiously and morally unfit to occupy his position.
Held: Simon . .
Cited – Regina v The Imam of Bury Park Mosque, Luton and others ex parte Sualiman Ali CA 12-May-1993
The court had been asked to intervene in an internal dispute as to the role of an Imam in a mosque community.
Held: The request was denied. The case was not one of public law: ‘ the particular function which the Imam was performing affected . .
Cited – Varsani and others v Jesani, Patel and Her Majesty’s Attorney-General CA 3-Apr-1998
A Hindu religious sect, constituted as a charity, had split into two factions.
Held: The court had jurisdiction to order that the assets of the sect should be divided under the powers in the Act, and held upon separate trusts for the two . .
Cited – Regina v the Imam of Bury Park Jame Masjid Luton and others ex parte Suliman Ali QBD 13-Sep-1991
The court was asked to intervene in an internal dispute as to the role of an Imam in a mosque community.
Held: . .
Distinguished on the facts – Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC 27-Jun-1994
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . .
Cited – Manoussakis and Others v Greece ECHR 26-Sep-1996
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 9; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic . .
Cited – HH Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Eastern Media Group and Another QBD 17-May-2010
The claimant, a Sikh religious leader complained of defamation in a Sikh journal in England. The defendant said the claim was non-justiciable since it required the court to pronouce on a matter of religious doctrine.
Held: The plea of . .
Cited – Khaira and Others v Shergill and Others CA 17-Jul-2012
The parties disputed the trusteeship and governance of two Gurdwaras (Sikh temples). The defendants now applied for the claim to be struck out on the basis that the differences were as to Sikh doctrines and practice and as such were unjusticiable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.428701
(New York Court of Appeals) A book had been placed on sale in 1941, but was still being reprinted and sold in 1946.
Held: The rule in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer was formulated ‘in an era which long antedated the modern process of mass publication’ and was therefore not suited to modern conditions. The limitation period started to run in 1941, when the book was first put on sale. The court pointed out that ‘Under [the rule in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer] the Statute of Limitation would never expire so long as a copy of such book remained in stock and is made by the publisher the subject of a sale or inspection by the public. Such a rule would thwart the purpose of the legislature.’
(1948) 81 NE2d 45
England and Wales
Outmoded – Duke of Brunswick v Harmer QBD 2-Nov-1849
On 19 September 1830 an article was published in the Weekly Dispatch. The limitation period for libel was six years. The article defamed the Duke of Brunswick. Seventeen years after its publication an agent of the Duke purchased a back number . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 And 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2009
The applicant alleged that the rule under United Kingdom law whereby each time material is downloaded from the Internet a new cause of action in libel proceedings accrued (‘the Internet publication rule’) constituted an unjustifiable and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.317947
(New York Court of Appeals) A report published at a press conference on 16 December 1996 was placed on the internet the same day. A claim was filed over a year later.
Held: The limitation period started when the report was first uploaded onto the website and did not begin anew each time the website version of the report was accessed by a user: ‘The policies impelling the original adoption of the single publication rule support its application to the posting of . . the report . . on the website . . These policies are even more cogent when considered in connection with the exponential growth of the instantaneous, worldwide ability to communicate through the Internet . . Thus a multiple publication rule would implicate an even greater potential for endless retriggering of the statute of limitations, multiplicity of suits and harassment of defendants. Inevitably, there would be a serious inhibitory effect on the open, pervasive dissemination of information and ideas over the Internet which is, of course, its greatest beneficial promise.’
(2002) NY int 88
United States
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 And 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2009
The applicant alleged that the rule under United Kingdom law whereby each time material is downloaded from the Internet a new cause of action in libel proceedings accrued (‘the Internet publication rule’) constituted an unjustifiable and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.317948
The claimant appealed against summary dismissal of his claim in defamation.
Pill, Thorpe, Mantell LJJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 1030
England and Wales
Cited – Budu v The British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Mar-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.201165
[2001] EWCA Civ 627
England and Wales
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.200916
The claimant appealed orders in favour of the defendant that statements, which he claimed were defamatory, were made in situations attracting qualified privilege. Allegations had been made by his step-children that the claimant had assaulted them. He had been interviewed by the police, but a prosecution was rejected because the children’s evidence was inconsistent with the marks noted. Nevertheless, his work as an educational welfare officer, and the suggestion that the police retained an ‘open file’ led to them staying on the child protection register. The claimant also alleged malice.
Held: The context of the child protection hearing was clearly one attracting qualified privilege. As to malice, the test is subjective, depending on the defendant’s state of mind and intention. The remaining possibility of other acts of abuse was enough to destroy any possible foundation for the allegation of malice.
Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Simon Brown, Mr Justice Jacob
[2003] EWCA Civ 102
England and Wales
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 – Alexander v Arts Council of Wales CA 9-Apr-2001
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.179033
The claimant, the former Taoiseach of Ireland sought damages after the defendant newspaper published an article falsely accusing him of duplicity. The paper said that his position meant that they should have the defence of quaified privilege available.
Held: Qualified privilege defence applied in defamation proceedings reporting acts of public officials where there appeared a duty to publish, a proper public interest in hearing the allegations and proper reporting procedures (even though the allegations might be false). The court set clearer guidelines for the characteristics of the defence of qualified privilege in defamation actions. The statements must be made honestly, under a legal social or moral duty, satisfying a proper public interest, and the material must warrant protection.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Hirst LJ, Robert Walker LJ
Times 09-Jul-1998, Gazette 26-Aug-1998, Gazette 07-Oct-1998, [1998] 3 All ER 961, [1998] EWCA Civ 1172, [1998] 3 WLR 862
European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited – Pullman v Hill and Co CA 1891
The plaintiff claimed publication of a defamation when the defendant was said to have dictated it to his typist.
Held: That was sufficient publication. The Court considered what would amount to publication in the law of defamation.
Lord . .
Applied – Gaddafi v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 28-Oct-1998
The claimant, the son of the leader of Libya, sought damages for defamation from the defendant for an article alleging his involvement in criminal activities. The defendant appealed orders striking out certain parts of his defence, and the claimant . .
Appeal from – 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 – Baldwin v Rusbridger and Another QBD 23-Jul-2001
The newspaper had lost a defamation action, and a leader criticised the law, and defended its journalist in terms which the complainant considered, in effect reaffirmed the original libel.
Held: There is no duty on a newspaper to reply to . .
Cited – Weller and Others v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Nov-2015
The three children of a musician complained of the publication of photographs taken of them in a public place in California. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144650
The plaintiffs appealed against refusal of orders striking out the defences of justification to their libel action.
Held: The words complained of bore an accusation of money laundering. A plea of justification based upon a reasonable belief in the claimant’s criminality, could not be established by simply stating that publication had been a repetition of other statements. It must be established by direct reference to conduct of the plaintiff contributing to the suspicion.
May, Hirst LJJ, Sir Brian Neill
Times 13-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 612, [1999] QB 241, [1998] 3 WLR 592, [1998] 4 All ER 155, [1998] EMLR 597
England and Wales
Cited – Evans v Granada Television CA 1996
In a defamation action, it is open to the defendant to justify the imputation by establishing that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff from an objective point of view.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘But the jury are concerned with . .
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 – Stern v Piper and Others CA 21-May-1996
The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt.
Held: A defamation was not to be . .
Explained – 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 – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – Jameel and Another v Times Newspapers Limited CA 21-Jul-2004
The defendant had published a newspaper article linking the claimant to terrorist activity. The defendants argued that no full accusation was made, but only that the claimant was under investigation for such behaviour, and that the article had . .
Cited – Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 30-Apr-2008
The court considered the availability of qualified privilege for reporting of statements made in parliament and the actionable meaning of the article, which comprised in part those statements and in part other factual material representing the . .
Cited – Patel and Another v K and J Restaurants Ltd and Another CA 28-Oct-2010
The landlord appealed against refusal of forfeiture for breaches of the lease. A covenant provided against use for immoral purposes, and the sub-tenant had been found to be running a brothel. The tenant said that he had been concerned of an action . .
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: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144090
questions as to the meaning of the word ‘defamatory’ and as to the nature of an action for defamation.
Neill LJ
[1996] EWCA Civ 564, [1997] EMLR 139, [1996] 4 All ER 1008
England and Wales
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.662191
Two serving prisoners asserted defamation by the respondent in a publication suggesting that they were associated with a murder.
Tugendhat J
[2013] EWHC 848 (QB)
Cited – Cammish v Hughes CA 12-Dec-2012
Arden LJ summarised the law as regard abuse of process claims in defamation cases, saying that while the court must provide a remedy in a case that requires one, the process of the court should not be used in a case where the need has gone away. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472957
Contested application to have meanings of alleged defamatory statements be determined by the court.
Tugendhat J
[2013] EWHC 981 (QB)
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472979
The defendant sought a ruling that the words complained of by the claimant were not defamatory.
Nicola Davies DBE J
[2013] EWHC 838 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472584
The claimant sought an order to restrain anticipated defamatory comments and evidence to be given to an employment tribunal.
Held: It could not be said as the claimant asserted that dfeences were bound to fail, and no determination should be made before trial. Nor were the claimant’spleadings yet to the required standard.
Sharp J
[2013] EWHC 795 (QB)
Cited – Apsion v Butler QBD 23-Feb-2011
The defendant applied for summary judgement in his favour. The defendant had submitted to the Bar Standards Board a statement complaining of the claimant barrister’s professional conduct. The Board had later suspended the claimant after findings . .
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 – William Coulson and Sons v James Coulson and Co CA 1887
Lord Esher MR said: ‘It could not be denied that the court had jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction before trial. It was, however, a most delicate jurisdiction to exercise, because, though Fox’s Act only applied to indictments and . .
Cited – 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 – Trapp v Mackie HL 1979
Dr Trapp had been dismissed from his post by the Aberdeenshire Education Committee of which Mr Mackie was chairman. Dr Trapp petitioned the Secretary of State for an inquiry into the reasons for his dismissal. An inquiry was set up, and in the . .
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 – ZAM v CFW and Another QBD 7-Mar-2011
The parties were in dispute over the management of a trust. One sought an injunction restraining the other from publishing allegations of breach of trust.
Held: In the unusual circumstances, an order could be made. The claimant had put forward . .
See Also – Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others EAT 1-Feb-2013
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Admissibility of Evidence
In support of a discrimination claim the Claimant sought permission to adduce in evidence 39 hours’ worth of covert recordings which she had made of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472545
4977/05 – HEJUD, [2013] ECHR 271
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472473
The court set aside an order which had granted leave to serve libel proceedings outside the jurisdiction on the ground that the court was precluded by principles of judicial restraint from embarking on an enquiry into the plaintiff’s grounds for fearing that he would not receive justice in Singapore. Such an order would be a potential embarrassment for this country’s foreign relations with Singapore.
Brooke J
Times 21-May-1992
England and Wales
Cited – Korea National Insurance Company v Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty Ag ComC 18-Nov-2008
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment for payment of a sum under a policy of insurance. The defendant sought to refuse saying that the policy had been instigated by a fraud perpetrated by the state of North Korea, and or that the judicial system . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.316672
His Honour Judge Stephen Davies
[2015] EWHC 3232 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.554433
Mr Justice Dingemans
[2016] EWHC 225 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.560101
The claimants sought damages in respect of comments made by the defendants on their website, alleging fraud. No defence or acknowledgement had been filed. The claimants sought summary judgment. A judgment by default was not available because they also sought injunctive relief.
Held: Judgment was given for the claimants with damages and costs. The meanings were clearly defamatory, and ‘It is not necessary for those who bring defamation proceedings to prove that the words are false. It is for those who choose to publish libels to prove if they can that the words are true, or an expression of honest opinion, or otherwise protected by some rule of English law.’ Lloyd-Jones J awarded andpound;10,000, the claim being undefended.
Moloney QC J
[2013] EWHC 462 (QB)
England and Wales
Cited – Brett Wilson Llp v Person(s) Unknown, Responsible for The Operation and Publication of The Website www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com QBD 16-Sep-2015
The claimant solicitors sought remedies against the unknown publishers of the respondent website which was said to publish material defamatory of them, and to ampunt to harassment.
Held: The alleged defamatory meanings were not challenged by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472094
The defendants requested a preliminary ruling that the words complained of in the claimant’s action were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
Held: Some of the pleaded meanings were not supported, but others were clearly defamatory, and should not be struck out. Nor could it properly be said that there had been no substantial publication and accordingly the action could not be struck out as an abuse of process.
Tugendhat J
[2013] EWHC 440 (QB)
Cited – Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Caborn-Waterfield QBD 1960
When an accused person is committed under the first paragraph of section 10 and surrendered to a foreign government he is surrendered for trial. Before that course is taken the magistrate has to be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out. When . .
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 – O’Dwyer v ITV Plc QBD 30-Nov-2012
The defendant sought to have struck out the claim for defamation based on the defendant’s ‘Homes from Hell’ TV programme.
Held: The pleaded meanings failed, and an application to amend the particulars was refused. The action was struck out.
Cited – 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 – Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Limited v Page CA 1987
The plaintiff had contracted exclusively to supply to the defendants owners of petrol stations. On arrears arising, the plaintiff discontinued deliveries save on cash on delivery and direct debit terms. The defendants obtained supplies from another . .
Cited – Femis Bank v Lazard 1991
Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said: ‘However, in this case the plaintiffs rely on the decision . . in Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd v. Page . . which shows that, where the cause of action is founded on conspiracy to injure, the court can grant an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471924
Laws, McCombe LJJ, Sir David Eady
[2013] EWCA Civ 197
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471892
Tugendhat J
[2013] EWHC 515 (QB)
England and Wales
See Also – Thompson v James and Another (2) QBD 15-Mar-2013
A pleading of malice requires a high degree of particularity, and the matters pleaded must be more consistent with the presence of malice than its absence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471774
[1998] EWCA Civ 325
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143803
Appeal from an Order on the Defendants’ Summons pursuant to RSC Ord.82 r3A. The Judge held that the words complained of in this libel action were not capable of bearing any defamatory meaning of the Plaintiffs or any of them and dismissed the action.
[1998] EWCA Civ 263
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143741
[2013] NIQB 14
Northern Ireland
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471602
The parties competed in providing employment law services. The claimant complained of slanderous comments said to have been made by the defendant in discussions with a firm of solicitors seeking to select a firm. The claimant now appealed against the striking out of its action as ‘not worth the candle’. No damage was pleaded, and the solicitors had selected the claimants.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘there is neither reality nor substance to the tort here alleged. It is not proportionate to permit the action to proceed to trial.’
Laws, Arden, Tomlinson LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 155
England and Wales
Cited – Barham v Lord Huntingfield CA 1913
The plaintiff pleaded that on a day at the end of 1910 or early in 1911 the defendant published specified defamatory words to Le Grys and further during the years 1910, 1911 and 1912 the defendant published similar words. The slander imputed immoral . .
Cited – Glennie v Independent Magazines (UK) Limited CA 17-Jun-1999
A party is under a duty to present his entire case at the first hearing in the Employment Tribunal. Where a claimant’s representative had decided to adopt a particular position in law when making representations to the original industrial tribunal, . .
Cited – Proctor v Bayley CA 1889
A final injunction was refused in a patent case because, although the defendant had been found to infringe, the court did not accept there was any basis to infer that there would be a continuance of the wrongful activity to justify a quia timet . .
Cited – Joyce v Sengupta and Another CA 31-Jul-1992
The defendant published an article accusing the plaintiff of theft. Not having funds to launch a claim in libel, the plaintiff obtained legal aid to claim in malicious falsehood. She now appealed against a strike out of that claim.
Held: A . .
Cited – Hays Plc v Hartley QBD 17-May-2010
Mr Hartley operated a news agency, and provided to the publisher of the Sunday Mirror, MGN Ltd, allegations of racism that had been levelled at the claimant company by former employees. The allegations were reported in an article headed ”KKK . .
Applied – 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: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471546
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 meanings complained of.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Though there were falsehoods in the programme, the claiant had been unable to identify its losses.
Maurice Kay VP, Moore-Bick, Rimer LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 152
England and Wales
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 – 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 . .
Appeal from – Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 28-Oct-2011
The claimant company manufactured electric cars. They claimed that a review of a car on the defendant’s programme ‘Top Gear’ included malicious falsehoods and was defamatory.
Held: The defamatory meanings claimed could not properly be . .
Appeal from – Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Feb-2012
The claimant, manufacturer of electric cars, complained of a review of its car on ‘Top Gear’. It’s pleaded meanings had been rejected, and it now sought leave to amend its pleading to add new alleged defamatory meanings. . .
Cited – McAlpine v Bercow QBD 24-May-2013
The claimant alleged defamation in a tweet by the defendant. The court now decided as a preliminary point, the meaning of the words: ‘Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*’. There had been other but widespread (mistaken) allegations against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471332
Sir Terence Etherton Ch, Rix, Lewison LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 149
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
England and Wales
See Also – Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors CA 15-Feb-2011
The claimant sought protection under the Act from his former employers’ behaviour in making repeated allegations against him. He appealed against the striking out of his claim.
Held: The appeal suceeded. The matter should go to trial. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471330
The court discussed the ‘bane and antidote’ rule in defamation cases: ‘So far as the antidote is concerned, it seems to me that only in the clearest of cases would it be proper for a judge to rule that the sting in the words, which are ex hypothesis capable of a defamatory meaning in themselves, is drawn by the surrounding context, so that in the result those words cease to be capable of a defamatory meaning. In my judgment the general though perhaps not universal rule should be that this is a matter for the jury and not the Judge to decide’.
Hirst LJ
[1998] EMLR 807
England and Wales
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.199360
The applicant and her husband had adopted a son. After problems he was taken into care and fostered. The council sought a contribution to the cost of care. The parent requested details as to the circumstances behind the application, and had relayed to them allegations against them. The allegations were withdrawn, and apologised for, but the claimant sought damages. She appealed an order striking out her claim on the basis that the statement was privileged.
Held: The statement was made in the course of a procedure which was short of court proceedings being started. The authority said that its conduct of child care proceedings would be severely hampered if such statements could not be communicated between the parties’ legal representatives. Letters written by a solicitor in the performance of his or her duties to a client of the firm attract qualified privilege. Absolute privilege could not be extended similarly. Appeal allowed.
Times 29-Dec-1997, Gazette 04-Feb-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 3032, [1998] 2 FCR 611, [1998] 1 WLR 860, [1998] 1 All ER 624, [1998] EMLR 503, [1998] Fam Law 517, [1998] 2 FLR 630
Children Act 1989 Sch 2 Part III
England and Wales
Cited – Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd v Parkinson CA 1892
The court described the characteristics of a tribunal to which absolute privilege attaches. Having spoken of ‘an authorised inquiry which, though not before a court of justice, is before a tribunal which has similar attributes’ and similar . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143432
Employee who had consented to disciplinary process by contract could not sue for defamation for publication of details of accusation.
Times 05-Feb-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 94
England and Wales
See Also – Friend v Civil Aviation Authority EAT 24-Jul-1995
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.80688
The claimant was involved in defamation proceedings against two major newspapers. The defendant was said to have repeated the story alleged to be defamatory with additional allegations of criminal behaviour in Tweets and in his blog.
Eady J
[2013] EWHC 145 (QB)
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470758
Eady J
[2013] EWHC 85 (QB)
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470608
[2013] EWCA Civ 19
England and Wales
Cited – Elvanite Full Circle Ltd v AMEC Earth and Environmental (UK) Ltd TCC 14-Jun-2013
Following the proncipal judgment there were disputes as to the basis of assessment of costs and the interaction between the existing costs management order (which approved the defendant’s budget costs of andpound;264,708) and the total costs now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470598
ECHR Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Publication of untrue statements concerning alleged judicial bias: no violation
Facts – In May 2005 a certain HP was acquitted in criminal proceedings of the attempted rape of an asylum-seeker. The applicant company published an article which was highly critical of those proceedings, in particular on account of the manner in which evidence was taken and assessed and of alleged bias on the part of the presiding judge. The judge then brought an action in defamation against the applicant company on account of statements in the impugned article accusing her of ignoring relevant evidence, giving a ‘scandalous’ judgment and having ‘unfinished business’ with the alleged victim. In December 2005 a regional court found for the judge and ordered the applicant company to pay EUR 7,000 in compensation and to publish a summary of the judgment.
Law – Article 10: The issue discussed in the impugned article concerned a matter of public interest, but in addition to criticising HP’s trial also contained particularly harsh criticism of the presiding judge as having been biased. The statements in question must be considered as statements of fact, which the applicant company unsuccessfully sought to prove before the domestic courts. The seriousness of the allegation that the judge had purposely given too little weight to some evidence and too much weight to other evidence required a very solid factual basis, which the applicant company was unable to rely on. The applicant company was ultimately ordered to pay EUR 7,000, a reasonable amount taking into account the length and content of the impugned article. In sum, in awarding such compensation in respect of an article that was so damaging to the judge’s reputation, the State had acted within its margin of appreciation.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
3084/07 – CLIN, [2012] ECHR 2044
European Convention on Human Rights 10-1
Human Rights
See Also – Falter Zeitschriften Gmbh v Austria (No 2) (1707) ECHR 18-Sep-2012
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.467000
The defendant disputed whether the words complained of were defamatory, and whether the action was an abuse as being ‘not worth the candle’. The parties were in opposition over a proposed development of a biomass plant.
Held: The court found defamatory meaning in the words used.
As to the abuse claim, a defamation claimant need not be interested only in damages, and in this case the claimant was entitled to seek vindication.
Chambers QC J
[2012] EWHC 976 (QB)
England and Wales
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 – 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 – Schellenberg v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2000
The claimant had settled defamation actions against the Guardian and the Sunday Times on disadvantageous terms, when it seemed likely that he was about to lose. He then pressed on with this almost identical action against the BBC.
Held: A . .
Cited – Ecclestone v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 6-Nov-2009
The defendant newspaper published a diary piece about the claimant, who alleged that it meant that she: ‘was disrespectful and dismissive of the McCartneys and Annie Lennox to the point of being willing to disparage them publicly for promoting . .
Cited – Cairns v Modi QBD 10-Nov-2010
Tugendhat J said: ‘A claimant’s primary concern in a libel action is vindication, not damages for what has been suffered in the past. So the damage that has occurred before the action is brought may not give an indication of the importance of the . .
Appeal from – Cammish v Hughes CA 12-Dec-2012
Arden LJ summarised the law as regard abuse of process claims in defamation cases, saying that while the court must provide a remedy in a case that requires one, the process of the court should not be used in a case where the need has gone away. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.470149
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim in defamation against the defendant. He was a prisoner convicted of rape and subject to life imprisonment. He sought parole, and said that the defendant had slandered him before the Parole Board.
Held: Parole Board proceedings are not part of any proceedings of a court, and so communications with the Parole Board are not protected by privilege from defamation actions. ‘It is clear . . that . . the defendant made a statement to the police to the effect that she was being harassed by the plaintiff and that a witness statement was taken from her. The contents of that witness statement and the details of any previous discussions leading to the taking of the witness statement would appear to be covered by the rule as to immunity.’
Hirst LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ, Sir Brian Neill
Gazette 17-Dec-1997, Times 02-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2836, [1998] EMLR 488
Criminal Justice Act 1991 Sch 5 Para 1
England and Wales
Cited – Grovit and others v Doctor and others HL 24-Apr-1997
The plaintiff began a defamation action against seven defendants. Each had admitted publication but pleaded justification. The claims against the fourth to seventh defendants were dismissed by consent, and the third had gone into liquidation. The . .
Cited – Buckley v Dalziel QBD 3-May-2007
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 CA 15-Jul-2008
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.143235
The procedure for determining whether words were defamatory was intended to be summary; appeals are to be discouraged. The new rule was intended to lay down a swift and inexpensive procedure in chambers to eliminate meanings which the words are plainly incapable of bearing. Hirst LJ said: ‘I would strongly wish to discourage appeals under O.82,r.3A on which the decision seems to me to lie essentially within the province of the judge in chambers. This rule is intended to lay down a swift and inexpensive procedure in chambers to eliminate meanings which the words are plainly incapable of bearing.’
Held: it is quite clear, in my judgment, that the crucial question at the present juncture is not what meaning the words do bear, which will be a question for the jury to decide at the trial, but rather what meaning the words are capable of bearing i.e. whether the meaning pleaded in the defence was one which the average viewer could have derived from the programme. I would say at once that it is by no means improbable that the jury will conclude, in line with Mr. Price’s submissions before us today, that the sting does lie in the reference to the Bank of England’s involvement. But having considered the words carefully, I am by no means satisfied that that is an inevitable conclusion, nor am I satisfied that the defendants’ more restricted meaning is one which the jury must necessarily conclude the words are incapable of bearing; in my judgment, the real sting, in the eyes of the reasonable one-off viewer as a matter of first impression, may well lie in the imputation that the grounds for suspicion are in themselves sufficiently credible.’
Hirst, Henry LJJ and Harman J
Times 12-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2824, [1998] EMLR 516
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 82 Rule 3A
England and Wales
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 – 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 – 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 – Loveless v Earl; Capital and Counties (Financial Services) Limited CA 4-Nov-1998
When a defendant claimed qualified privilege and the Plaintiff alleged that the words complained of were issued with malice, the defendant will not prevented from reliance on qualified privilege if it can show that the words have an honestly . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 November 2022; Ref: scu.143223
Bean J
[2012] EWHC 3445 (QB)
England and Wales
See Also – Mengi v Hermitage QBD 20-Jul-2012
The defendant appealed from an order requiring the claimant to make payments by way of security for costs, saying that the amount ordered was insufficient. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466942
[2012] ScotSC 101
Scotland
Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466826
[2012] ScotSC 102
Scotland
Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466827
The defendant appealed from an order requiring the claimant to make payments by way of security for costs, saying that the amount ordered was insufficient.
Tugendhat J
[2012] EWHC 2045 (QB)
England and Wales
See Also – Mengi v Hermitage QBD 30-Nov-2012
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.463088
The appellant was respondent in a defamation action brought by Mr Venables. He appealed an interlocutory order striking out an alternative meaning proposed by the defendant for some of the words complained of.
Held: It was for the judge to settle the range of potential meanings. The words however clearly bore the meaning alleged by the claimant and could not reasonably be read to refer to a lower allegation of misbehaviour than dishonesty. Appeal dismissed.
Lord Justice Auld, Sir Christopher Slade
[1997] EWCA Civ 2687
England and Wales
Cited – Mapp v News Group Newspapers Limited; Gillan v News Group Newspapers Limited and similar CA 27-Feb-1997
The judge is to consider the range of meanings of words and decide if they are capable of having a defamatory meaning. Meaning is not a job for the jury: ‘In my judgment, the proper role for the judge, when adjudicating a question under Ord.82,r.3A, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.143086
His Honour Judge Lewis
[2021] EWHC 513 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.659678
The defendant sought to have struck out the claim for defamation based on the defendant’s ‘Homes from Hell’ TV programme.
Held: The pleaded meanings failed, and an application to amend the particulars was refused. The action was struck out.
In the course of the case, the claimant a litigant in person had suggested a duty on the to provide assistance. Tugendhat J said: ‘It is not uncommon for self represented litigants to invite the court to act as a source of guidance. The court is under an obligation to do justice, and so, where a litigant is without representation, the court will be bound to look for points in the litigant’s favour which the court would not have to look for if the litigant was represented. But the English legal system is adversarial. The court employs no legally qualified staff to assist the judge. Not only is the court without any means to provide such assistance, the court is also obliged to be impartial. A litigant who explicitly seeks the guidance of the court in the way that Mr O’Dwyer does is seeking what he may suppose to be free legal advice. But he is seeking it from a source which is unable to provide it, and it is certainly not free.’ He went on to point out the very considerable counterbalancing risks to defendants in such cases of being unable to recover their substantial costs.
Tugendhat J
[2012] EWHC 3321 (QB)
Cited – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 1) CA 26-Nov-2003
The court considered the levels of meaning in an article falsely connecting the claimant with terrorist activity: ‘Once it is recognised that the article may be asserting no more than that in one way or another the respondents may unwittingly have . .
Cited – Turcu v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 4-May-2005
Chilling effect of defamation costs structures
Eady J said: ‘The claimant in these proceedings is seeking damages against News Group Newspapers Ltd, as publishers of The News of the World, in respect of articles appearing in the editions of that newspaper dated 3 November 2002 . . He issued his . .
Cited – Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .
Cited – Al Amoudi v Brisard and Another QBD 12-May-2006
In the context of allegations of Internet publication there is no presumption that the words published were actually read, and no presumption that a reader who has read one article on a blog will have read all the other articles. The burden is on . .
Cited – Ash and Another v McKennitt and others CA 14-Dec-2006
The claimant was a celebrated Canadian folk musician. The defendant, a former friend, published a story of their close friendship. The claimant said the relationship had been private, and publication infringed her privacy rights, and she obtained an . .
Cited – 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 – Caborn-Waterfield v Gold and Others QBD 11-Mar-2013
The defendants requested a preliminary ruling that the words complained of in the claimant’s action were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
Held: Some of the pleaded meanings were not supported, but others were clearly defamatory, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466439
Neuberger J approved the statement of Jacob J as to comparative marketing.
Neuberger J
[1998] FSR 9
England and Wales
Approved – Vodafone Group Plc v Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd ChD 1997
The court examined the development of the law in relation to comparative advertising. Jacob J said: ‘Prior to the coming into force of the Trade Marks Act 1994 comparative advertising using a registered trade mark of a competitor was, subject to . .
Cited – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd QBD 15-Jul-2009
The claimant said that the defendant’s characterisation of its own products as ‘Good for You’ by reference to a description saying that it did not include the claimant’s product as a component, was a malicious falsehood. The defendant sold other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.374706
The law of libel does not provide for declarations of falsity: ‘It is better for the general good that individuals should occasionally suffer than that freedom of communication between persons in certain relations should be in any way impeded. But . . it is not expedient that liberty should be made the cloak of maliciousness’.
(1881) 6 QBD 333
England and Wales
Cited – Clift v Slough Borough Council and Another QBD 6-Jul-2009
The claimant sought damages for defamation. The council had decided that she had threatened a member of staff and notified various people, and entered her name on a violent persons register. She alleged malice, the council pleaded justification and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.347447
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 plaintiff]’.
A critic is ‘entitled to dip his pen in gall for the purposes of legitimate criticism.’
The court equated malice with a commentator’s failure to express his ‘real opinion’: ‘To establish malice, it is necessary to produce evidence that the comment was designed to serve some other purpose than that of expressing the commentator’s real opinion, for example, that of satisfying a private grudge against the person attacked.’
Jordan CJ
(1942) 42 SR (NSW) 171
Australia
Cited – Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Feb-2006
The defendant sought to defend the claim for defamation by claiming fair comment. The claimant said that the relevant facts were not known to the defendant at the time of the publication.
Held: To claim facts in aid of a defence of fair . .
Cited – 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 – Robins v Kordowski and Another QBD 22-Jul-2011
The claimant solicitor said he had been defamed on the first defendant’s website (‘Solicitors from Hell’) by the second defendant. The first defendant now applied to set aside judgment entered by default. The claimant additionally sought summary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.368290
Eady J considered the principles in construing a compromise agreement: ‘The modern approach is to apply ordinary principles of construction to such agreements in seeking to determine the intention of the parties and, in particular, that of the relevant claimant.’
Eady J
[2012] EWHC 3137 (QB)
Cited – Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others CA 14-Nov-2013
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claims for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation as to the suitability for deveopment of two former fire service properties. The court had said that a settlement with co-tortfeasors operated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465687
Eady J
[2012] EWHC 3056 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465478
The defendants appealed against case management directions made in this defamation action.
Brooke, Dyson LJJ, Wall J
[2002] EWCA Civ 1087
England and Wales
Cited – Bellenden (formerly Satterthwaite) v Satterthwaite CA 1948
The court considered the role of the appeal court in assessing an order for maintenance payable for a divorced wife. The judge’s decision had been made by an exercise of his discretion.
Held: Asquith LJ said: ‘It is, of course, not enough for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.188942
Application was made for the assessment of costs in an action but only after a very long delay.
Richards J
[2004] EWHC 2602 (QB), [2005] 2 Costs LR 259
England and Wales
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.219341
The respective parties had been preparing competing bids for the National Lottery. One (Branson) alleged that the other had offerered a bribe. The other responded that the allegation was a lie, and each sued the other for defamation.
Held: The Lucas-Box defence could not be struck out. Litigious advantage resulting to one or other party from discovery and inspection is an aspect of securing fairness in disposal of the matter. The court refused leave to appeal against an order requiring disclosure of Mr Snowden’s statement as part of a mutual disclosure.
Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Aldous
[1997] EWCA Civ 2021
England and Wales
Cited – Prager v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 1988
The plaintiff claimed in libel, alleging certain meanings. The defendant sought to plead in justification to support certain defamatory meanings, but not those alleged.
Held: Where the words used were capable of being read by the judge to . .
Cited – De L’Isle v Times Newspapers CA 1988
A defendant who pleading justification may plead any reasonable meaning that a jury, properly directed, might find to be the real meaning. . .
Cited – Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd; Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford, Viscount De L’Isle v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 1986
Justification To be Clearly Set Out
The former practice which dictated that a defendant who wished to rely on a different meaning in support of a plea of justification or fair comment, did not have to set out in his defence the meaning on which he based his plea, was ill-founded and . .
Cited – 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 – Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd CA 1968
Courts to Settle upon a single meaning if disputed
The ‘single meaning’ rule adopted in the law of defamation is in one sense highly artificial, given the range of meanings the impugned words sometimes bear. The law of defamation ‘has passed beyond redemption by the courts’. Where in a libel action . .
Cited – Kirkup v British Rail Engineering Ltd CA 1983
Where interrogatories are administered they should be drafted with considerable rigour because if they are so widely drawn as to be vague they may be regarded as oppressive. . .
Cited – Mercer v Chief Constable of Lancashire CA 1991
When justifying a detention, the Chief Constable must prove it ‘was lawful minute by minute and hour by hour’. . .
Cited – Wallace Smith Trust v Deloitte Haskins and Sells CA 1997
If the party seeking discovery showed that the documents might be necessary for a fair disposal of the action, an order should normally only be refused after the court had examined the documents and considered them in the light of the material . .
Cited – Taylor v Anderton (Police Complaints Authority Intervening) CA 19-Jan-1995
Reports, which had been prepared for the purposes of a police complaint procedure, could be entitled to protection from disclosure under a public interest immunity certificate. The court also considered the relationship between the documentation and . .
See Also – Guy Snowden v Richard Branson CA 6-Jul-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.142418
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.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There is no implied undertaking as to the use of disclosed documents in criminal proceedings preventing their use in civil proceedings. It was foreseeable that the information, if acted upon, would be made public. This applied whether or not the material was obtained under compulsion. There was no analogy between the position of the Crown in a criminal case and that of a party in civil proceedings. It could not be said that the Crown would be deterred from complying with its obligations of disclosure, whether at common law or now under statute, by concern that the accused might use the documents for some ulterior purpose. The rules of public interest immunity, immunity from suit and qualified privilege should be sufficient protection for people who might be adversely affected by collateral use of disclosed documents.
Otton LJ, Staughton LJ
Times 12-Jun-1997, [1998] QB 424
England and Wales
Appeal from – Mahon v Rahn QBD 19-Jun-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 . .
Appealed to – Mahon v Rahn QBD 19-Jun-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 – Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
See Also – Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2) CA 8-Jun-2000
The defendant’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings . .
Cited – McBride v The Body Shop International Plc QBD 10-Jul-2007
The claimant sought damages for libel in an internal email written by her manager, accusing her of being a compulsive liar. The email had not been disclosed save in Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the claimant sought permission to use the email . .
See Also – Mahon v Rahn and others (No 2) CA 8-Nov-1999
Brooke LJ attempted to draw a distinction between simple cases. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.83320
The claimant request directions that the defamation action should be without a jury.
Held: ‘This will not be a trial which requires a prolonged examination of documents. I accept that there will be more than one viewing of the material, but I also accept the submission of Mr Thwaites that the material must be viewed bearing in mind that it was broadcast to audiences who would not be viewing it more than once, and would not be following it with a transcript.’ Trial was to be by jury.
Tugendhat J
[2012] EWHC 2700 (QB)
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465139
Assessment of damages after offer of amends.
Held: the Court’s award of damages serves as ‘an outward and visible sign of vindication’
Eady J
[2003] EWHC 137 (QB), [2004] EMLR 3
England and Wales
Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464875
Eady J
[2001] EWHC 582 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464872
The defendant argued that the words complained of did not bear the defamatory meaning alleged, nor any other defamatory meaning.
Tugendhat J
[2012] EWHC 2751 (QB)
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464787
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 purposes.
Held: Taken as a whole, the words complained of in one article did not carry a defamatory meaning. Other articles did carry such meanings.
Eady J
[2010] EWHC 1629 (QB)
England and Wales
Cited – Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .
Cited – Skuse v Granada Television CA 30-Mar-1993
The claimant complained that the defendant had said in a television programme that he had failed to act properly when presenting his expert forensic evidence in court in the trial of the Birmingham Six.
Held: The court should give to the . .
Cited – Gillick v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another CA 19-Oct-1995
Words which were broadcast were capable of meaning that the Plaintiff’s behaviour had contributed to deaths. She was a campaigner against the giving of contraceptive advice to young girls.
Held: The statement was defamatory. The full test was: . .
Cited – Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres and Another CA 23-Jul-2001
The claimant appealed after closing her action for an alleged defamation by the respondents in a leaflet published by them. She challenged an interim decision by the judge as to the meaning of the words complained of.
Held: The leaflet made . .
Cited – Hayward v Thompson CA 1981
A later publication by the same defendant can be used to identify the plaintiff in an earlier publication. If the defendant did intend to refer to the plaintiff, it may be enough if the recipient understood it as referring to the plaintiff . .
Cited – Chase v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Dec-2002
The defendant appealed against a striking out of part of its defence to the claim of defamation, pleading justification.
Held: The Human Rights Convention had not itself changed the conditions for a plea of justification based upon reasonable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.420049
The judge is to consider the range of meanings of words and decide if they are capable of having a defamatory meaning. Meaning is not a job for the jury: ‘In my judgment, the proper role for the judge, when adjudicating a question under Ord.82,r.3A, is to evaluate the words complained of and to delimit the range of meanings of which the words are reasonably capable, exercising his own judgment in the light of the principles laid down in the above authorities and without any Ord.18,r.19 overtones. If he decides that any pleaded meaning falls outside the permissible range, it is his duty to rule accordingly. It will, as is common ground, still be open to the plaintiff at the trial to rely on any lesser defamatory meanings within the permissible range but not on any meanings outside it. The whole purpose of the new rule is to enable the court in appropriate cases to fix in advance the ground rules on permissible meanings which are of such cardinal importance in defamation actions, not only for the purpose of assessing the degree of injury to the plaintiff’s reputation, but also for the purpose of evaluating any defences raised, in particular, justification or fair comment.’
Hirst, Millett and Hutchison LJJ
Times 10-Mar-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1107, [1997] EMLR 397, [1998] QB 520, [1998] 2 WLR 260
England and Wales
Cited – Venables v Bose CA 10-Nov-1997
The appellant was respondent in a defamation action brought by Mr Venables. He appealed an interlocutory order striking out an alternative meaning proposed by the defendant for some of the words complained of.
Held: It was for the judge to . .
Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141503
The existence of other rumours as to a plaintiff’s character do not reduce the damages to be awarded for the distress caused by the libel in a libel action.
Times 27-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 815
England and Wales
Appeal from – Bennet and Others v Guardian Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Dec-1995
There is no defence in defamation in the law of England and Wales that the Plaintiff is a public figure. That would be to import a defence from the United States. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141211
Eady J considered whether a pleading of fraud in a defamation case should be subject to similar restrictions as to a similar pleading in a torts claim, and ruled that the introduction of the probability test would unduly inhibit the pleading of justification, and that the test to be applied is ‘whether a juror would be perverse to find the plea of justification established, on the balance of probabilities, if all the pleaded facts were proved at trial’.
Eady J
[2012] EWHC 2214 (QB), [2012] EMLR 32
England and Wales
See Also – Foley Independent News and Media Ltd and Others v Lord Ashcroft KCMG CA 4-Apr-2012
The defendants in this defamation action appealed against interlocutory orders striking out their defence of justification.
Held: Elias LJ indicated obiter that his ‘strong preliminary view’ was that ‘a pleading of fraud in the context of . .
Cited – Stocker v Stocker QBD 10-Jun-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by his former wife in a post on facebook. The posting and associatedeEmails were said falsely to have accused him of serious abuse, and that the accusations had undermined his relationship with his new partner.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463327
Tugendhat J
[2010] EWHC 1410 (QB)
England and Wales
Principal Judgement – Underhill v Corser and Another QBD 27-May-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.416773
An out of time claim for defamation was allowed after late disclosures by the defendant bank in the case.
Times 24-Mar-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1277
England and Wales
Appeal from – Lloyd’s Bank Plc v Rogers and Another QBD 11-Apr-1996
Claim may be added outside limitation period where based on same facts. . .
Appealed to – Lloyd’s Bank Plc v Rogers and Another QBD 11-Apr-1996
Claim may be added outside limitation period where based on same facts. . .
Cited – Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd and Another TCC 5-Dec-2006
The land owner sought damages for negligence against its builder and a sub-contractor. Having left the issue too late to complete the pre-action protocol, it issued proceedings, but then had to seek to amend the pleadings to add a further claim out . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141145
Articles in consecutive issues of The Sunday Mirror accused the plaintiff of pimping for the KGB, organising sex with prostitutes for visiting British businessmen and then blackmailing them. The defendants pleaded justification. The plaintiff conceded in evidence that he was a persistent womaniser, but denied procuring prostitutes, though a tape of a conversation with a journalist in which the plaintiff was apparently arranging an assignation between the journalist and a prostitute was introduced in evidence (the plaintiff’s explanation being that he was either drunk or fantasising). The defendants called no evidence and the judge withdrew from the jury such parts of the plea of justification as suggested contact with the KGB.
Held: The Court reduced the jury’s award of pounds 100,000 to pounds 40,000, saying the jury must have concluded that the charge of procuring prostitutes was made out in part and that there were other matters which went to reduce the damages. (Hirst LJ) ‘I ask the same question as that asked by Neill LJ in Rantzen, namely could a reasonable jury have thought that this award was necessary to compensate the plaintiff and to re-establish his reputation? In my judgment, grave though the libel is, and grave though the aggravation has been, the answer to that question is decisively no. First, I can see no justification for an award which is comparable with Rantzen, approximately double the awards either approved or substituted by the Court of Appeal in Houston and [Kiam] v Neill, and no less than four times the award substituted in John. Secondly, it is in my judgment out of all proportion to personal injury awards of a comparable amount, which embrace such very serious injuries as paraplegia and total blindness; these personal injuries awards . . do not of course establish a scale in the libel field, but I feel sure that, had that comparison been available to the jury in the present case (as it would be today in the post-John era), they would not have awarded anything like pounds 100,000, even if the plaintiff had enjoyed an unblemished reputation. Thirdly, when the material in reduction of damages is also taken into account (as of course it must be) the award seems to me still more gravely disproportionate to the injury caused’.
Hirst LJ
[1996] EWCA Civ 1186, [1997] EMLR 233, [1997] QB 586
England and Wales
Cited – John v MGN Ltd CA 12-Dec-1995
Defamation – Large Damages Awards
MGN appealed as to the level of damages awarded against it namely pounds 350,000 damages, comprising pounds 75,000 compensatory damages and pounds 275,000 exemplary damages. The newspaper contended that as a matter of principle there is no scope in . .
Cited – Kiam v MGN Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
Where a court regards a jury award in a defamation case as excessive, a ‘proper’ award can be substituted for it is not whatever sum court thinks appropriate, wholly uninfluenced by jury’s view, but the highest award which a jury could reasonably . .
Cited – Nail v Jones, Harper Collins Publications Ltd; Nail v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Wade etc QBD 26-Mar-2004
The claimant was upset by an article published by the defendant making false allegations that he had behaved in a sexually profligate manner many years earlier. When it was substantially repeated he sued.
Held: The words were defamatory. An . .
Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
Cited – Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another CA 16-May-2006
Application to determine compensation for admitted defamation.
Keene LJ considered both Pamplin and Burstein as bases for reliance upon other ‘misconduct’ of a claimant to reduce damages: ‘it needs to be borne in mind that the principle of . .
Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141054
A malicious falsehood claim may be struck out without evidence, but only rarely.
Times 08-Jan-1997
England and Wales
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.78231
The claimant said that a press release issued by the defendant was defamatory. The defendant now applied to strike out an application for aggravated damages.
Tugendhat J
[2012] EWHC 349 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.463086
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 latitude permitted by the law in the context of the election in the course of which they were published. They are not capable of being defamatory of Mr Crow, and so the action must be struck out.
Tugendhat J
[2012] EWHC 1982 (QB)
Cited – Curran v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd SCS 20-Dec-2011
The pursuer a Scottish Socialist Party Member and Scottish Parliament member had been involved as a witness (though not called) in defamation proceedings. She issued a press notice critical of one of the parties. The defender published stories based . .
Cited – Modi and Another v Clarke CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimants, organisers of the Indian Premier cricket League, met with organisations in England seeking to establish a similar league in the Northern Hemisphere. A copy of a note came to the defendant, chairman of the England and Wales Cricket . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462836
Renewed application for leave to appeal against strike out of defamation claim.
Rimer LJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 937
England and Wales
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462535
Kerr LCJ and Higgins LJ
[2007] NICA 40
Northern Ireland
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.261666
Lord Justice Pill
[2001] EWCA Civ 1479, [2002] EMLR 15
England and Wales
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.201440