Category: Defamation

Campbell v MGN Ltd: QBD 16 Mar 2021

Preliminary issues as to the meaning of an extract from a newspaper article.

Judges:

Mr Justice Johnson

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 601 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd QBD 18-Jan-2019
Settling Meaning in Defamation Cases
Nicklin J set out the approach to meaning in defamation actions: The Court’s task is to determine the single natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of, which is the meaning that the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.659682

El Naschie v Macmillan Publishers Ltd (T/A Nature Publishing Group) and Another: QBD 6 Jul 2012

The claimant sought damages in defamation after articles in Nature, after they criticised him for using the scientific journal of which he was publisher and editor to publish his own articles.
Held: The articles were defamatory, but were also substantially true, and in any event they were defensible as honest comment and that it was the product of responsible journalism, so that the defence of Reynolds privilege succeeded.

Judges:

Sharp J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1809 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Defamation

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462302

Spencer v Sillitoe, Fujitsu Services Limited (Formerly ICL): QBD 9 Jul 2003

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Eady

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1651 QB

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Spencer v Sillitoe and Another CA 20-May-2002
Application for leave to appeal – summary dismissal of claim of defamation – alleged remarks by co-worker to senior employee. Leave given
A litigant should not be deprived of a hearing merely because the case seems to a judge implausible on . .

Cited by:

Cited – Spencer v Sillitoe and Another CA 20-May-2002
Application for leave to appeal – summary dismissal of claim of defamation – alleged remarks by co-worker to senior employee. Leave given
A litigant should not be deprived of a hearing merely because the case seems to a judge implausible on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.184777

McDonald’s Corporation and Another v Steel and Morris: CA 17 Oct 1996

A trial judge’s decisions should not normally be set aside unless they constituted a denial of justice to one or other of the parties.

Citations:

Times 22-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 755

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – McDonald’s Corporation v Steel and Another CA 14-Apr-1994
Defence paragraphs alleging justification were to be struck out only in the clearest of cases. One should only plead justification if one has reasonable evidence to support the defence or reasonable grounds for supposing that sufficient evidence . .
See Also – McDonald’s Corporation, McDonald’s Restaurants Limited v Helen Marie Steel, David Morris QBD 19-Jun-1997
(Summary of judgment) . .

Cited by:

See Also – McDonald’s Corporation, McDonald’s Restaurants Limited v Helen Marie Steel, David Morris QBD 19-Jun-1997
(Summary of judgment) . .
Cited – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another (No 4) QBD 4-Mar-2009
Orders were sought to strike out part of the defendants defence of justification to an allegation of defamation.
Held: Where there remains the possibility of a jury trial, it becomes especially important to identify the issues the jurors are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.140622

Sakho and Another v World Anti-Doping Agency: QBD 11 Feb 2020

Clay by professional footballer alleging defamation by the defendant. The court was now asked as a prior issue whether it should determine the meaning only of the primary publications or also of certain republications.

Judges:

Mrs Justice Steyn DBE

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 251 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.648917

Smith v ADVFN Plc and Others: CA 30 Jul 2009

Application for leave to appeal

Judges:

Hooper LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 826

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Smith v ADVFN Plc and others QBD 25-Jul-2008
The claimant had brought multiple actions in defamation against anonymous posters on an online forum. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions. The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs . .
See Also – Smith v ADVFN Plc QBD 13-Mar-2008
Order re case management application. The claimant said he had been defamed on an internet forum run by the defendants, and sought orders for disclosure of the identities of the posters to the website. The operator said that special software might . .
See Also – Smith v ADVFN Plc CA 15-Apr-2008
The claimant complained of defamation on internet bulletin boards. He made an application to require the forum operator to disclose IP addresses and other information about posters under a Norwich Pharmacal order. Further applications were made for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460493

Andre v Price: QBD 11 Oct 2010

The word ‘calculated’ as used in s.2 of the 1952 Act meant ‘likely’: accepting that, in that context, that meant something less than ‘more likely than not’.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2572 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (1) CA 12-Sep-2017
Defamation – presumption of damage after 2013 Act
The claimant said that the defendant had published defamatory statements which were part of a campaign of defamation brought by his former wife. The court now considered the requirement for substantiality in the 2013 Act.
Held: The defendant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460356

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 on interviews with the party she had criticised, and she now said that the articles were defamatory.

Judges:

Lady Paton

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 86, [2011] CSIH 86, 2012 SLT 359, 2012 GWD 4-63, 2012 Rep LR 30

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Alfred Nelson Laughton v The Hon And Right Reverend The Lord Bishop of Sodor And Man PC 15-Nov-1872
LaughtonSodor1872
(Isle of Man) The Bishop of Sodor and Man, in a charge to his Clergy in Convocation, commented on a speech made by a Barrister in his character of an Advocate instructed to oppose a Bill before the House of Keys, promoted by the Government, vesting . .

Cited by:

Cited – Crow v Johnson QBD 16-Jul-2012
The claimant union leader sought damages in defamation against the mayor of London with regard to election leaflets. The defendant denied any defamatory meaning.
Held: The words in the leaflet that Mr Crow complained of were within the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460295

Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc: CA 30 Sep 1996

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 618, [1997] 1 All ER 655, [1997] EMLR 117

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc QBD 28-Oct-1994
Qualified privilege reporting statutory proceedings stays despite doubts on findings. Jonathan Sumption QC said: ‘Historically, qualified privilege meant a state of affairs which negatived legal malice and meant that the plaintiff had to prove . .

Cited by:

Cited – Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others QBD 13-Jul-2006
The claimant police officer sought damages from the defendants who had published a book alleging that he had been corrupt. The defendants claimed privilege under Reynolds and the 1996 Act.
Held: The defence of qualified privilege failed. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.140485

Thour v The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust: QBD 29 May 2012

The claimant alleged defamation in an employment reference give by the defendant. The defendant pleaded qualified privilege, and claimant answered that it had been given in malice. The defendant had erred in describing a disciplinary process, but had immediately seeked to correct it.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1473 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459807

Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: QBD 12 Dec 2002

The court considered the possible affront to jurors in a defamation action when asked to decide some elements of an action, but not others.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2726 (QB), [2002] QB 321

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd and others CA 23-Jan-2001
The defendants requested that the defamation claim they faced be struck out despite the apparent reasonable possibility of success. . .
See Also – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) CA 12-Mar-2001
The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication.
Held: It is necessary for the defendants to . .
See Also – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 26-Apr-2001
A defendant could not support a defence in defamation proceedings of qualified privilege by putting before the court matters of which it was unaware at the time of publication. The duty to publish and the interest in receiving the information, and . .
See Also – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .

Cited by:

Cited – Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others QBD 13-Jul-2006
The claimant police officer sought damages from the defendants who had published a book alleging that he had been corrupt. The defendants claimed privilege under Reynolds and the 1996 Act.
Held: The defence of qualified privilege failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.178905

Kiam v Neill and Another (No 2): CA 26 Jul 1996

An allegation of insolvency was made against a well known businessman. An apology in agreed terms was published after 3 weeks.
Held: A jury award of 45,000 in damages was not excessive for a libel despite an apology having been given. The plaintiff’s prominence was a relevant circumstance.

Citations:

Times 26-Jul-1996, [1996] EMLR 493

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kiam v Neil and Another CA 14-Dec-1994
A defendant may not tell the jury of pre-trial offers of settlement from the Plaintiff on damages. . .

Cited by:

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 . .
See Also – Kiam v Neil and Another CA 14-Dec-1994
A defendant may not tell the jury of pre-trial offers of settlement from the Plaintiff on damages. . .
Cited – Nail and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others CA 20-Dec-2004
The claimant appealed the award of damages in his claim for defamation. The defendants had variously issued apologies. The claimant had not complained initially as to one publication.
Held: In defamation proceedings the damage to feelings is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.82773

Berkoff v Burchill and and Times Newspapers Limited: CA 31 Jul 1996

The plaintiff actor said that an article by the defendant labelling him ugly was defamatory. The defendant denied that the words were defamatory.
Held: It is for the jury to decide in what context the words complained of were used and whether they were defamatory in those circumstances. An allegation that an actor was hideously ugly was capable of being defamatory of him on the grounds it exposed him to ridicule.
Neill LJ said ‘It is necessary in some cases to consider the occupation of the plaintiff.’ and ‘It will be seen from this collection of definitions that words may be defamatory, even though they neither impute disgraceful conduct to the plaintiff nor any lack of skill or efficiency in the conduct of his trade or business or professional activity, if they hold him up to contempt scorn or ridicule or tend to exclude him from society. On the other hand insults which do not diminish a man’s standing among other people do not found an action or libel or slander. The exact borderline may often be difficult to define . . the word ‘reputation’, by its association with phrases such as ‘business reputation’, ‘professional reputation’ or ‘reputation for honesty’, may obscure the fact that in this context the word is to be interpreted in a broad sense as comprehending all aspects of a person’s standing in the community. A man who is held up as a figure of fun may be defeated in his claim for damages, for example, by a plea of fair comment, or, if he succeeds on liability, the compensation which he receives from a jury may be very small. But nevertheless the publication of which he complains may be defamatory of him because it affects in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards him . . one has to consider the words in the surroundings in which they appear . . It is trite law that the meaning of words in a libel action is determined by the reaction of the ordinary reader and not by the intention of the publisher, but the perceived intention of the publisher may colour the meaning. In the present case it would, in my view, be open to a jury to conclude that in the context the remarks about Mr Berkoff gave the impression that he was not merely physically unattractive in appearance but actually repulsive. It seems to me that to say this of someone in the public eye who makes his living, in part at least, as an actor, is capable of lowering his standing in the estimation of the public and of making him an object of ridicule’.
Lord Millett, dissenting in the result, said that ‘it is one thing to ridicule a man; it is another to expose him to ridicule’.

Judges:

Neill LJ, Millett LJ, Phillips LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Aug-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 564, [1996] 4 All ER 1008

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Parmiter v Coupland And Another 1840
In an action for libel, the Judge is not bound to state to the jury, as matter of law, whether the publication complained of be a libel or not ; but the proper course is for him to define what is a libel in point of law, and to leave it to the jury . .
Cited – Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association CA 1970
The court considered whether an article published in the British Medical Journal was capable of bearing a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff dentist. The article made an attack upon the plaintiff’s technique for anaesthesia.
Held: Words may . .
Cited – The Capital and Counties Bank Limited v George Henty and Sons HL 1882
The defendant wrote to their customers saying ‘Henty and Sons hereby give notice that they will not receive in payment cheques drawn on any of the branches of the Capital and Counties Bank.’ The contents of the circular became known and there was a . .
Cited – Sim v Stretch HL 1936
Test For Defamatory Meaning
The plaintiff complained that the defendant had written in a telegram to accuse him of enticing away a servant. The House considered the process of deciding whether words were defamatory.
Held: The telegram was incapable of bearing a . .
Cited – Scott v Sampson QBD 1882
The court explained why evidence of particular acts of misconduct on the part of the Plaintiff tending to show his character and disposition should be excluded, saying ‘Both principle and authority seems equally against its admission. It would give . .
Cited – Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures CA 1934
The plaintiff (herself a Princess) complained that she could be identified with the character Princess Natasha in the film ‘Rasputin, the Mad Monk’. On the basis that the film suggested that, by reason of her identification with ‘Princess Natasha’, . .
Cited – Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England CA 1924
The court considered the duty of confidentiality owed by a banker to his client. Bankes LJ said: ‘At the present day I think it may be asserted with confidence that the duty is a legal one arising out of contract, and that the duty is not absolute . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Apr-2010
The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .
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 – Uppal v Endemol UK Ltd and Others QBD 9-Apr-2014
The claimant alleged defamation by other contestants at the time when she was participating in the defendants’ TV show, Big Brother. The defendants had broadcast the material. The defendant now sought a ruling that the words complained of were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.78355

Hayden v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 11 Mar 2020

The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant, and the court now considered the meanings of the words complained of. Another person had been held by police for seven hours after identifying the claimant as a transgendered man.
Held: The judge rejected a request for his recusal. The judge’s recent involvement in a case involving transgender issues and his remarks could not support a recusal: ‘save in special circumstances previous judicial pronouncements will not provide a proper basis for recusal’.
‘ . . applying the Koutsogiannis principles, the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of, when read in the context of the Article as a whole, to be that the Claimant’s complaint to the police, and the reason for Mrs Scottow’s arrest, went far beyond merely that Mrs Scottow had called the Claimant a man. They would understand that it extended to the other – and really quite serious – aspects of her complaint about what Mrs Scottow had said about her which the Article set out in [13] and [14]. In short, this is a classic ‘bane and antidote’ case: see Koutsogiannis, supra, [12(viii)]. Read by themselves, the words complained of (the bane) suggest the only reason Mrs Scottow was arrested was for calling the Claimant a man. But when they are read in the context of the Article as a whole (the antidote), a different meaning emerges.’
The words were not defamatory of the claimant. In substance they were addressed rather to a suggested overblown response by the police which in turn was a response to a proper and serious complaint by the defendant.

Judges:

Mr Justice Julian Knowles

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 540 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
Cited – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – Otkritie International Investment Management and Others v Urumov CA 14-Oct-2014
The claimants brought proceedings against several defendants. There had been a series of hearings conducted by a single judge leading to findings that several defendants had been involved in a fraud. The defendants sought recusal of that judge . .
Cited – Bates and Others v Post Office Ltd (No 4) QBD 9-Apr-2019
Defendant’s application for recusal of judge. . .
Cited – Miller, Regina (on The Application of) v The College of Policing and Another Admn 14-Feb-2020
The claimant challenged the respondent’s operational guidance on non-criminal hate speech. A third party had complained of his comments in tweets regarding transgender issues. . .
Cited – Chase v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Dec-2002
The defendant appealed against a striking out of part of its defence to the claim of defamation, pleading justification.
Held: The Human Rights Convention had not itself changed the conditions for a plea of justification based upon reasonable . .
Cited – Brown v Bower and Another QBD 31-Oct-2017
Judgment on issues of meaning and whether defamatory.
As to the Chase levels of meaning: ‘They come from the decision of Brooke LJ in Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003] EMLR 11 [45] in which he identified three types of defamatory . .
Cited – Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd QBD 18-Jan-2019
Settling Meaning in Defamation Cases
Nicklin J set out the approach to meaning in defamation actions: The Court’s task is to determine the single natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of, which is the meaning that the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand the . .
Cited – Kirkegaard v Smith QBD 11-Dec-2019
Meaning . .
Cited – Waterson v Lloyd MP and Another CA 28-Feb-2013
The former MP for Eastbourne had brought an action for defamation against the appellant, the current MP and his agent in respect of election materials used by them. The appellants had relied on the defence of fair comment, and now appealed against . .
Cited – Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism QBD 15-Feb-2019
Judgment after a trial of preliminary issues of meaning and whether of fact or opinion.
Nicklin J said: ‘Although the Claimant has selected only parts of the Articles for complaint, the Court must ascertain the meaning of these sections in the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.648930

Kiam v Neil and Another: CA 14 Dec 1994

A defendant may not tell the jury of pre-trial offers of settlement from the Plaintiff on damages.

Citations:

Times 14-Dec-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kiam v Neill and Another (No 2) CA 26-Jul-1996
An allegation of insolvency was made against a well known businessman. An apology in agreed terms was published after 3 weeks.
Held: A jury award of 45,000 in damages was not excessive for a libel despite an apology having been given. The . .

Cited by:

See Also – Kiam v Neill and Another (No 2) CA 26-Jul-1996
An allegation of insolvency was made against a well known businessman. An apology in agreed terms was published after 3 weeks.
Held: A jury award of 45,000 in damages was not excessive for a libel despite an apology having been given. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.82772

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 law for awarding exemplary damages, either generally or in the particular circumstances of this case, so that the question of exemplary damages should never have been left to the jury.
Held: Libel juries in defamation cases are to be given guidance on the level of damages by comparison with personal injury claims. In assessing the amount of an award of damages in defamation proceedings, a jury’s attention could properly be drawn to awards which had been approved or substituted by the Court of Appeal and to conventional compensatory scales of damages awarded in personal injury actions. This was not as a precise correlation, but as a check on the reasonableness of the proposed award. The award in this case was too high.
An allegation of racism is a very serious one, going to integrity and honour. Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘The successful plaintiff in a defamation action is entitled to recover, as general compensatory damages, such sum as will compensate him for the wrong he has suffered. That sum must compensate him for the damage to his reputation; vindicate his good name; and take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication has caused. In assessing the appropriate damages for injury to reputation the most important factor is [a] the gravity of the libel; the more closely it touches the plaintiff’s personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty and the core attributes of his personality, the more serious it is likely to be. [b] The extent of publication is also very relevant: a libel published to millions has a greater potential to cause damage than a libel published to a handful of people. [c] A successful plaintiff may properly look to an award of damages to vindicate his reputation: but the significance of this is much greater in a case where the defendant asserts the truth of the libel and refuses any retraction or apology than in a case where the defendant acknowledges the falsity of what was published and publicly expresses regret that the libellous publication took place. It is well established that [d] compensatory damages may and should compensate for additional injury caused to the plaintiff’s feelings by the defendant’s conduct of the action, as when he persists in an unfounded assertion that the publication was true, or refuses to apologise, or cross-examines the plaintiff in a wounding or insulting way. Although the plaintiff has been referred to as ‘he’ all this of course applies to women just as much as men.’
Sir Thomas Bingham said: ‘There could never be any precise, arithmetical formula to govern the assessment of general damages in defamation, but if such cases were routinely tried by judges sitting alone there would no doubt emerge a more or less coherent framework of awards which would, while recognising the particular features of particular cases, ensure that broadly comparable cases led to broadly comparable awards. This is what has happened in the field of personal injuries since these ceased to be the subject of trial by jury and became, in practice, the exclusive preserve of judges. There may be even greater factual diversity in defamation than in personal injury cases, but this is something of which the framework would take account.
The survival of jury trial in defamation actions has inhibited a similar development in this field. Respect for the constitutional role of the jury in such actions, and judicial reluctance to intrude into the area of decision-making reserved to the jury, have traditionally led judges presiding over defamation trials with juries to confine their jury directions to a statement of general principles, eschewing any specific guidance on the appropriate level of general damages in the particular case. While some distinguished judges (e.g. Diplock LJ in McCarey v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 2 ) [1965] 2 QB 86 at 109) have considered that juries should be informed in broad terms of the conventional level of awards for personal injuries, not by way of analogy but as a check on the reasonableness of an award which the jury are considering, this has not been an authoritative view (see Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027 at 1071). Even in the rare case when a personal injury claim was to be tried by a jury it was thought inappropriate that a jury should be informed of the conventional level of awards ( Ward v James [1966] 1 QB 273, 302), a striking departure from the modern practice when judges are sitting alone. Whatever the theoretical attractions of this approach, its practical disadvantages have become ever more manifest. A series of jury awards in sums wildly disproportionate to any damage conceivably suffered by the plaintiff has given rise to serious and justified criticism of the procedures leading to such awards. This has not been the fault of the juries. Judges, as they were bound to do, confined themselves to broad directions of general principle, coupled with injunctions to the jury to be reasonable. But they gave no guidance on what might be thought reasonable or unreasonable, and it is not altogether surprising that juries lacked an instinctive sense of where to pitch their awards. They were in the position of sheep loosed on an unfenced common, with no shepherd. While the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the fundamental soundness of the traditional approach in Sutcliffe v Pressdram Ltd [1991] 1 QB 153, the court did in that case recommend trial judges to draw the attention of juries to the purchasing power of the award they were minded to make, and of the income it would produce: see 178-179, 185-186, 190). This was thereafter done, and juries were reminded of the cost of buying a motor car, or a holiday, or a house. But judges were still constrained by authority from steering the jury towards any particular level of award.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

Independent 15-Dec-1995, Times 14-Dec-1995, [1997] QB 586, [1995] 2 All ER 35, [1996] 3 WLR 593, [1995] EWCA Civ 23, [1996] EMLR 229

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sutcliffe v Pressdram Ltd CA 1991
A 600,000 pound compensatory award was set aside by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it must have been made on the wrong basis, almost certainly so as to punish Private Eye. The Court of Appeal could not substitute its own award for that of a . .
Disapproved – McCarey v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 2) CA 1965
References to damages awards in personal injury actions were legitimate in directing a defamation jury on quantum. . .
Cited – Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case.
Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gleaner Company Ltd and Another v Abrahams PC 14-Jul-2003
Punitive Defamation Damages Order Sustained
(Jamaica) The appellants challenged a substantial award of damages for defamation. They had wrongfully accused a government minister of corruption. There was evidence of substantial financial loss. ‘For nearly sixteen years the defendants, with all . .
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 – 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 – George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2004
The claimant MP alleged defamation in articles by the defendant newspaper. They claimed to have found papers in Iraqi government offices after the invasion of Iraq which implicated the claimant. The claimant said the allegations were grossly . .
Cited – Cleese v Clark QBD 2003
The court looked at the calculation of damages after an offer of amends under the Act by the defendant.
Held: Such calculations have to be linked to the very different circumstances of each case. Comparisons with awards after jury trial were . .
Cited – Nail and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others CA 20-Dec-2004
The claimant appealed the award of damages in his claim for defamation. The defendants had variously issued apologies. The claimant had not complained initially as to one publication.
Held: In defamation proceedings the damage to feelings is . .
Cited – Rowlands v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 20-Dec-2006
The claimant succeeded in her claims for general damages against the respondent for personal injury, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, but appealed refusal of the court to award aggravated damages against the chief constable.
Held: . .
Cited – Jones v Pollard, Mirror Group Newspapers Limited and Bailey CA 12-Dec-1996
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 . .
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 – Morrissey v McNicholas and Another QBD 26-Oct-2011
The claimant musician alleged defamation, saying that the defendant had accused him of being a right wing racist. The defendant now applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process because of the claimant’s delay.
Held: The application . .
Cited – Cairns v Modi CA 31-Oct-2012
Three appeals against the levels of damages awards were heard together, and the court considered the principles to be applied.
Held: In assessing compensation following a libel, the essential question was how much loss and damage did the . .
Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Cited – Heil v Rankin, Rees v Mabco (102) Ltd, Schofield v Saunders and Taylor Ltd and Other cases CA 23-Mar-2000
The Law Commission had recommended that the general level of damages awarded for pain suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury cases should be raised. The Court now considered several cases on the issue.
Held: The court would do so. . .
Cited – Flymenow Ltd v Quick Air Jet Charter Gmbh QBD 15-Dec-2016
Warby J awarded a claimant company general damages of pounds 10 for a libel suggesting that it was insolvent. . .
Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.82542

British Data Management Plc v Boxer Commercial Removals Plc and Another: CA 28 Feb 1996

A quia timet action in a defamation case must specify the precise words which are expected to be used.

Citations:

Times 28-Feb-1996, [1996] 3 All ER 707

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Affirmed – Best v Charter Medical of England Ltd and Another CA 26-Oct-2001
The Civil Procedure Rules did not alter the previous practice in defamation actions, that the words to be relied upon should be pleaded in detail, save only in exceptional circumstances. The case had been properly struck out, as disclosing no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.78624

McDonalds Corp and Another v Steel and Another: CA 25 Mar 1994

The plaintiff company had sued the defendants in defamation with regard to a leaflet publishd and distributed by them. The defendants argued justification. The defendants appealed against an order striking out parts of their defence, saying that the plea of justification was inufficiently pleaded and supported by evidence. The defendants said that the issue should be decided only after completion of discovery.
Held: The defendants’ appeal was allowed. The proposed test for supporting evidence for propriety of a plea of justification was not that it was ‘clear and sufficient’. This would impose an unrealistic burden on a defendant.

Judges:

Neill, Steyn, Peter Gibson LJJ

Citations:

[1994] EWCA Civ 41, [1995] EMLR 527, [1995] 3 All ER 615

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – Atkinson v Fitzwalter CA 25-Mar-1987
A court should not grant leave to amend a pleading into a form which is liable to be struck out. The more serious the allegation that is made, the more clearly satisfied must the Court be that no prejudice will be caused that cannot be compensated . .
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 – Mangena v Edward Lloyd Ltd 1908
The plaintiff claimed in defamation after the defendant had republished an extract from a paper laid before parliament.
Held: The ‘blue book’ reflected material laid before both houses of parliament, and reproduction of it was protected under . .
Cited – Mangena v Edward Lloyd Ltd 1908
The plaintiff claimed in defamation after the defendant had republished an extract from a paper laid before parliament.
Held: The ‘blue book’ reflected material laid before both houses of parliament, and reproduction of it was protected under . .
Cited – Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v Trollope and Colls Ltd CA 1986
The employers sued the builders and architects alleging defects in the air conditioning system. Later, cracking and displacement of the walls was discovered, caused allegedly by not having sulphate resisting cement, and defects in the wall ties. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.465096

Ex parte Coventry Newspapers Ltd: CA 1993

Documents had been disclosed by the Police Complaints Authority under court order for an appeal against conviction. They related to an investigation of the conduct of police officers who had given evidence against the appellant. The newspaper, now being sued for libel by the same police officers, applied for the accused to be given leave to allow it to use the documents in its defence, on the basis that there was an implied undertaking which it was necessary to vary.
Held: The court acceded to the newspaper’s application. The interests of justice required the undertaking to be varied so as to allow the appellant in the criminal proceedings to hand over the documents to the newspaper upon its undertaking to use them only for the purposes of its defence. It was unnecessary to call those in whom the confidence inhered to consent to the disclosures.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ said: ‘But for such proposed order the appellant would clearly be unable to hand over the documents: he would be subject to an implied undertaking, analogous to that arising on discovery in civil proceedings, not to use the disclosed documents otherwise than for the purposes for which discovery was given, here the pursuance of the criminal appeal, which is now, of course, successfully concluded.’ and
‘We summarise our reasoning thus. Given the central objective of this category of public interest immunity as ‘the maintenance of an honourable, disciplined, law-abiding and uncorrupt police force,’ given the grave public disquiet understandably aroused by proven malpractice on the part of some at least of those who served in the now disbanded West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, given the extensive publicity already attaching to the documents here in question following the appellant’s successful appeal, it seems to us nothing short of absurd to suppose that those who co-operated in this investigation – largely other police officers and court officials – will regret that co-operation, or that future generations of potential witnesses will withhold it, were this court now to release the documents to [the newspaper] to enable them to defeat if they can an allegedly corrupt claim in damages.’

Judges:

Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ

Citations:

[1993] QB 278, [1993] 1 All ER 86, [1992] 3 WLR 916

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Police, Information

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.211382

Watts v Aldington, Tolstoy v Aldington: CA 15 Dec 1993

There had been a settlement of proceedings for libel brought by Lord Aldington against Mr Nigel Watts and Count Nikolai Tolstoy. Lord Aldington had obtained judgment for andpound;1.5 million in damages against both defendants following a trial. Bankruptcy orders were made against both Mr Watts and Count Tolstoy. By early 1991 Lord Aldington was faced with appeals or applications to appeal in four sets of proceedings. By a written agreement a compromise was reached that third parties would pay andpound;10,000 to Lord Aldington on behalf of Mr Watts. In consequence of the agreement Mr Watts sought a declaration against Lord Aldington that the settlement of 20 March 1991 constituted a release of all rights which Lord Aldington had against both himself and Count Tolstoy. Count Tolstoy sought an order directing his trustee in bankruptcy to reject Lord Aldington’s proof in respect of the original judgment debt. Paragraph 6 of the letter was in these terms: ‘That Lord Aldington undertakes to accept the said sum in full and final settlement of the judgment and orders referred to above and any liability howsoever arising before today’s date which could involve any payment by you directly or indirectly to Lord Aldington.’ A consent order was made annulling the bankruptcy order which had been made against Mr Watts. Lord Aldington had sought to prove in the bankruptcy of Count Tolstoy. The trustee in that bankruptcy claimed contribution against Mr Watts under section 1 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. Mr Watts sought a declaration against Lord Aldington that the settlement of 20 March 1991 constituted a release of all rights which Lord Aldington had against himself and Count Tolstoy; and Count Tolstoy sought an order directing his trustee in bankruptcy to reject Lord Aldington’s proof in respect of the original judgment debt. At first instance the question was whether paragraph 6 of the settlement letter was a release of the judgment debt so relieving Count Tolstoy, as well as Mr Watts, from any further liability and extinguishing the right of contribution which Count Tolstoy, through his trustee in bankruptcy, would otherwise have had against Mr Watts or whether the settlement should be construed merely as an agreement by Lord Aldington not to sue Mr Watts. The Judge held that the agreement of 20 March 1991 was an agreement not to sue on or enforce the original judgment debt, not an agreement for the discharge of the liability under it.
Held: A settlement at a reduced level with one defendant does not release a co-defendant in a joint libel action.
The Court had difficulty in adopting the Judge’s view that, as a matter of construction, the letter of 20 March 1991 evidenced an agreement not to sue rather than a release. Two members of the court (Lord Justice Steyn and Lord Justice Simon Brown held that paragraph 6 of that letter did contain a release of Lord Aldington’s claim against Mr Watts. Lord Justice Neill did not find it necessary to decide that point. But the view that the agreement contained a release of Lord Aldington’s claim against Mr Watts did not lead to the conclusion that there was a release Lord Aldington’s claim against Count Tolstoy. Each member of the court held that the appeal should be dismissed. Lord Justice Neill rejected the traditional dichotomy between release and agreement not to sue. He said: ‘I have come to the conclusion, however, that in trying to fit the agreement into a particular category one may lose sight of the true enquiry: what is the meaning and effect of the agreement having regard to the surrounding circumstances and taking into account not only the express words used in the document but also any terms which can properly be implied.’ On the facts: ‘the agreement of 20 March 1991 was plainly subject to an implied term that Lord Aldington’s rights against Count Tolstoy would be reserved. I consider that any other result would offend common sense.’ and ‘Accordingly, though the result may be the same, in my opinion it will often be more satisfactory to consider whether the relevant document is an absolute release or release with a reservation rather than to consider whether the document can be fitted into the straitjacket of the covenant for agreement not to sue.’
Lord Justice Steyn, who had expressed the view that although the rule that the release of one of two joint and several tortfeasors was absurd and required re-examination nevertheless the court was bound to follow it, approached the matter in the same way: ‘In my judgment the right question is the following: is Lord Aldington reserving the right under his agreement [with Mr Watts] to sue Count Tolstoy? In my judgment the objective setting of the contract convincingly shows that the answer of both parties to that question would have been ‘Yes, of course’.
Lord Justice Simon Brown rejected the ‘technicality and intrinsic artificiality’ of the conventional approach to the rule as to the release of co-debtors – a rule which he described as a ‘juridical relic’. He defined the central question before the court as being ‘whether it is proper here to imply a reservation by Lord Aldington of his rights against Count Tolstoy’. That question admitted of only one answer: ‘On the facts known to both parties it was perfectly obvious that Lord Aldington was not prepared to abandon his judgment against Count Tolstoy. ‘

Judges:

Neill, Steyn, Simon Brown LJJ

Citations:

Times 16-Dec-1993, Independent 25-Jan-1994, CA Transcript 1578 of 1993, [1999] LTR 578

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Tolstoy-Miloslavsky v Aldington CA 27-Dec-1995
Solicitors who unreasonably commence proceedings may be subject to a wasted costs order, but there should be no award of costs against a solicitor solely because he acted without a fee. An award of costs should not be made against a solicitor who . .
See Also – Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case.
Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not . .
Appeal from – Lord Aldington v Tolstoy, Watts QBD 30-Nov-1989
The plaintiff sought damages after the article published by the defendants falsely accused him of complicity in war crimes.
Held: As to damages the jury awarded one and a half million pounds after being directed inter alia: ‘Let us now, . .

Cited by:

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 . .
See Also – Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case.
Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not . .
See Also – Tolstoy-Miloslavsky v Aldington CA 27-Dec-1995
Solicitors who unreasonably commence proceedings may be subject to a wasted costs order, but there should be no award of costs against a solicitor solely because he acted without a fee. An award of costs should not be made against a solicitor who . .
Cited – Chelsea Building Society v Nash CA 19-Oct-2010
The defendant customer of the Society appealed against an order as to the sum due under a joint mortgage. She said that the ‘full and final settlement’ of the debt with Ms Nash’s former husband and joint mortgagor had the effect of releasing Ms Nash . .
Applied – Johnson and Another v Davis and Another CA 18-Mar-1998
The court was asked: ‘whether or not the appellants were released from their obligation under a covenant to indemnify the respondents against claims arising under a lease by reason of the terms of an individual voluntary arrangement made under part . .
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.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.90331

Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 12 Jan 1994

A libel in published photographs was capable of being remedied by the accompanying article. The court should look to the publication as a whole.

Citations:

Independent 14-Jan-1994, Times 12-Jan-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 31-Mar-1995
The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.78986

Brown v Bower and Another: QBD 31 Oct 2017

Judgment on issues of meaning and whether defamatory.
As to the Chase levels of meaning: ‘They come from the decision of Brooke LJ in Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003] EMLR 11 [45] in which he identified three types of defamatory allegation: broadly, (1) the claimant is guilty of the act; (2) reasonable grounds to suspect that the claimant is guilty of the act; and (3) grounds to investigate whether the claimant has committed the act. In the lexicon of defamation, these have come to be known as the Chase levels. Reflecting the almost infinite capacity for subtle differences in meaning, they are not a straitjacket forcing the court to select one of these prescribed levels of meaning, but they are a helpful shorthand. In Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd, for example, Gray J found a meaning of ‘cogent grounds to suspect’

Judges:

Nicklin J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2637 (QB), [2018] EMLR 9, [2017] WLR(D) 719, [2017] 4 WLR 197

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chase v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Dec-2002
The defendant appealed against a striking out of part of its defence to the claim of defamation, pleading justification.
Held: The Human Rights Convention had not itself changed the conditions for a plea of justification based upon reasonable . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hayden v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Mar-2020
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant, and the court now considered the meanings of the words complained of. Another person had been held by police for seven hours after identifying the claimant as a transgendered man.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.598440

Seray-Wurie v The Charity Commission of England and Wales: CA 3 Feb 2009

The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claim for defamation in a reort prepared by the defendants criticising his actions as chairman of a CAB. The action had been struck out on the basis of qualified privilege, and the claimant’s allegation of malice discounted.
Held: The appeal failed. The claimant made assertions about the report which were simply inaccurate, he complained of things they had not said, and had elided elements contradicting his assertions.
Allegation of malice must include a demonstration at least of the falsity of the allegations complained of. The claimant had not shown even this.
Sir Anthony May said: ‘The burden of proof is difficult to discharge and findings of malice are very rare. The judge observed that the court should be wary of taking away an issue such as malice without its coming before a jury for deliberation. This step should only be taken where the court is satisfied that such a finding would be perverse. However, it was plainly a judge’s duty to prevent further time and money being expended upon a hopeless allegation . . Allegations of malice must go beyond that which is equivocal or merely neutral. There must be some particularised allegations from which a jury could rationally infer malice. That is that the relevant person was either dishonest or had a dominant motive to injure the claimant. Mere assertion will not do. A claimant may not proceed in the hope that something will turn up during the cross-examination of a witness at trial.’

Judges:

Sir Anthony May P QBD, Richards LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 153

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Seray-Wurie v The Charity Commission of England and Wales QBD 23-Apr-2008
The defendant sought an order to strike out the claimant’s allegations of defamation and other torts. The defendants claimed qualified privilege in that the statements complained of were contained in a report prepared by it in fulfilment of its . .
Cited – Turner v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd (MGM) HL 1950
A letter was published which criticised a film critic’s review of the week’s films.
Held: A person (including a corporation) whose character or conduct has been attacked is entitled to answer the attack, and the answer will be protected by . .
Cited – 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 – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Cited – S v Newham London Borough Council CA 24-Feb-1998
A Local Authority which was relaying the facts underlying a list of people it felt were unsuitable to work with children to the minister has no immunity from a defamation action. . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Cited – Alexander v Arts Council of Wales CA 9-Apr-2001
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.317954

Ali v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 27 Jan 2010

The claimant sought damages in defamation, saying that a combination of publications identified him.
Held: Eady J briefly discussed the effect of hyperlinks in the context of a dispute about meaning or reference in a defamation case.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 100 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Swain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Cited – Alexander v Arts Council of Wales CA 9-Apr-2001
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a . .
Cited – Spencer v Sillitoe and Another CA 22-Oct-2002
Appeal from a decision of Morland J, who granted the defendants summary judgment under Civil Procedure Rule 24(2)(a)(2), finding that the claimant, Mr Spencer, had no real prospect of succeeding on his claim.
Held: Buxton LJ said: ‘Bearing in . .
Cited – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Nov-2003
A policemen sued in defamation. The newspaper pleaded Reynolds qualified privilege.
Held: The plea was struck out. There has developed tendency of defendants to plead qualified privilege since the Reynolds decision in ‘rather waffly . .
Cited – 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 – B v N and Another QBD 31-Jul-2002
There was as allegation of defamation by one doctor against another.
Held: Eady J said: ‘To participate in a publication in such a way as to be liable in accordance with the law of defamation is not, I should emphasise, to be equated with . .

Cited by:

Cited – Islam Expo Ltd v The Spectator (1828) Ltd and Another QBD 30-Jul-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant in respect of its web-site. It said that the use of hyperlinks to third party sites was sufficient to identify the claimant and associate it with the allegations made.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.400999

Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd and David Walsh, Alan English: CA 29 Jul 2005

The claimant sought damages after publication by the first defendant of articles which it was claimed implied that he had taken drugs. The paper claimed qualified privilege, and claimed Reynolds immunity.
Held: The defence of qualified privilege should be restored, and be decided at trial, and not summarily.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Tuckey LJ, Arden LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1007, [2005] EMLR 797, [2005] EMLR 33

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Nov-2003
A policemen sued in defamation. The newspaper pleaded Reynolds qualified privilege.
Held: The plea was struck out. There has developed tendency of defendants to plead qualified privilege since the Reynolds decision in ‘rather waffly . .
Cited – Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 24-Oct-2002
The claimant appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the judgement in his favour for damages for defamation.
Held: The Court of Appeal was not able to quash a jury verdict as perverse, and the appeal succeeded. An appellate . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Cited – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .
Cited – Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 29-May-2002
A libel defence of justification which was based on ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion’ must focus on conduct of claimant that gives rise to suspicion. It was not permissible to rely upon hearsay. Defendant may not plead as ‘grounds’ material which . .
Cited – 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 – Bonnick v Morris, The Gleaner Company Ltd and Allen PC 17-Jun-2002
(Jamaica) The appellant sought damages from the respondent journalists in defamation. They had claimed qualified privilege. The words alleged to be defamatory were ambiguous.
Held: The publishers were protected by Reynolds privilege. The court . .
Cited – GKR Karate (UK) Limited v Porch, Yorkshire Post Newspaper, Holmes QBD 17-Jan-2000
The claimant sought damages alleging defamation. The judge ordered certain elements of the case to be heard first, and others, if necessary later. Although the case had been begun under the old rules, the new civil procedure regime gave the judge . .
See also – Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 17-Dec-2004
Eady J said: ‘repetitive and loose talk about questions can convey the impression there are reasonable grounds to suspect.’ . .

Cited by:

See also – Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 7-Dec-2005
. .
See also – Times Newspapers Ltd and others v Armstrong CA 13-Jun-2006
May LJ noted: ‘an action which does not come within section 69(1) has to be tried without a jury, unless the court in its discretion orders it to be tried with a jury. The discretion is now very rarely exercised, reflecting contemporary practice. . .
Cited – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd CA 2-Jun-2010
The claimant sold a sweetener ingredient. The defendant shop advertised its own health foods range with the label ‘no hidden nasties’ and in a situation which, the claimant said, suggested that its ingredient was a ‘nasty’, and it claimed under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.229147

Mann v O’Neill: 31 Jul 1997

High Court of Australia – Courts should be reluctant to extend the immunity given to witnesses: ‘the general rule is that the extension of absolute privilege is viewed with the most jealous suspicion, and resisted, unless its necessity is demonstrated’
Defamation – Absolute privilege – Absolute privilege only attaches out of necessity – Judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings – Complaint procedures and disciplinary proceedings – Letter to Attorney-General questioning special magistrate’s fitness to hold office – Letter not a step in disciplinary proceedings – Letter invoked investigative function equating with prosecuting authority’s function – Not necessary that statements to prosecuting authorities be absolutely privileged – Complaints to prosecuting authorities enjoy qualified privilege.

Citations:

(1997) 71 ALJR 903, (1997) 191 CLR 204, (1997) 145 ALR 682, (1997) 12 Leg Rep 21, [1997] Aust Torts Reports 81-436

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA 26-Oct-2006
The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Defamation

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.245753

Simpson v MGN Ltd and Another: QBD 27 Jan 2015

The court had struck out the defendant’s plea of justification. The parties now disputed the costs to be paid for that element of the action, the defendant arguing that the claimant had failed to comply with the requirements to comply with costs budgets.
Held: The court now gave its reasons for allowing the costs in part.
Warby J said: ‘i) A defendant does not have to prove the truth of every aspect of the words complained of. It is sufficient for the defence to prove the substantial truth of the defamatory sting of the words.
ii) The defence must however meet the whole defamatory sting. If the words contain a defamatory imputation of substance which is not covered by the plea of justification the defence cannot succeed.
iii) At the present stage, the question for the court is whether a trial judge could conclude that the pleaded case of justification, if established, proves the substantial truth of the words complained of.’

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 126 (QB), [2015] 1 Costs LR 139

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stocker v Stocker QBD 10-Jun-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by his former wife in a post on facebook. The posting and associatedeEmails were said falsely to have accused him of serious abuse, and that the accusations had undermined his relationship with his new partner.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.541926

QRS v Beach and Another: QBD 11 Dec 2014

The defendant sought to have set aside an order made to cease to publish a website accusing the several claimant solicitors of assorted levels of misconduct. The defendants had been involved in opening a new website after the second defendant had lost several cases involving an earlier website. The claimants alleged that the sites amounted to harassment.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4189 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Defamation

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.539948

Clift v Clarke: QBD 18 Feb 2011

The claimant sought disclosure of identities of posters to the defendant’s web-site.
Held: ‘In my view, the postings are clearly one or two-liners, in effect posted anonymously by random members of the public who do not purport, either by their identity or in what they say, to have any actual knowledge of the matters in issue. It is difficult to see in the context, and having regard to their content, how any reasonable, sensible reader could take either of them seriously, or indeed how they could conceivably have caused any damage to the Claimant’s reputation.’

Judges:

Sharp J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1164 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd QBD 2-Mar-2012
The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant company offering internet search facilities. The words complained of had been published in a blog, and in comments published on the blog.
Held: Jurisdiction should be declined. . .
Cited – The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .
Cited – Tamiz v Google Inc CA 14-Feb-2013
The respondent hosted a blogs platform. One of its user’s blogs was said by the appellant to have been defamatory. On discovery the material had been removed quickly. The claimant now appealed against his claim being struck out. He argued as to: (1) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.439672

Euroeco Fuels (Poland) Ltd and Others v Szczecin and Swinoujscie Seaports Authority Sa and Others: CA 11 Nov 2019

Appeal from order declining jurisdiction.
Lewison LJ pointed out: ‘So far as the question of irreconcilable judgments is concerned, I wish to reserve my opinion for a case in which it matters. I simply make the following observations. Judgment in The Tatry was given on 6 December 1994. Shevill was argued before the Grand Chamber on 10 January 1995; and judgment was delivered on 7 March 1995. Of the 11 judges who sat in Shevill, 6 had also sat in The Tatry. Neither Advocate General Leger nor the court referred to The Tatry, which had been decided in the previous month. In Shevill both Advocates-General drew a distinction between ‘conflicting judgments’ on the one hand, and ‘irreconcilable judgments’ on the other. That does not appear to be the case in The Tatry, in which the court referred only to ‘conflicting judgments’. The court in Shevill did not cast doubt on the Advocates General’s distinction; and its answer to question 6 might be thought to recognise implicitly that the existence of another possible jurisdiction did not deprive the claimant of his right to sue. How Shevill and The Tatry are to be reconciled is not, in my judgment, a straightforward question. On one view, Shevill (and after it eDate) give a claimant the substantive right to sue in each member state where the libel has been published, with the consequence that that right is not to be taken away by procedural means. On another view, the mere fact that there is a right to begin proceedings in a particular member state does not entail the consequence that the claimant is entitled to prosecute those proceedings all the way to trial. There is something to be said for each point of view. So I would prefer not to decide between them in a case in which it makes no difference to the outcome of the appeal.’
Bean LJ giving the leading judgment preferred what Lewison LJ had characterised as ‘another view’, albeit holding that it was unnecessary for his decision: ‘I accept the submission of Mr McCormick that the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the ECJ in Shevill is an authority about the right of a claimant to issue claims in each jurisdiction pursuant to RBR Article 7(2) [the equivalent to Article 5(3) of the Lugano Convention], not about whether the ‘related actions’ provisions of Article 30 can then be applied to such claims. The proposition for which Ms Page contends seems rather extreme. Suppose that someone is found stabbed to death and the defendant publishes an article, which is circulated throughout Europe, alleging that the deceased was murdered by the claimant. If Ms Page is right, the claimant, assuming he can afford it, has an absolute right to bring 27 separate libel claims against the defendant and (subject to any local case management decisions) to push each of them along towards a trial and judgment in whichever order he, the claimant, chooses. No stay can be granted, still less jurisdiction declined, under Article 30; and if in the first trial it is found that the claimant did in fact murder the deceased then, no matter: he can try again in another Member State because there is no risk of ‘irreconcilable’ judgments, only of ‘conflicting’ ones. This does not seem to me to accord with common sense. It also enables a claimant with deep pockets to oppress a defendant by suing him in 27 jurisdictions.’

Judges:

Lewison, Bean, Baker LJJ

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1932, [2019] 4 WLR 156, [2019] WLR(D) 623

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – eDate Advertising GmbH v X ECJ 25-Oct-2011
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Directive . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wright v Granath QBD 16-Jan-2020
Defamation across borders – Jurisdiction
The claimant began an action for defamation in an online publication. The Norwegian resident defendant had begun an action there seeking a declaration negating liability. The Court was now asked by the defendant whether under Lugano, the UK action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.643874

Allen v Times Newspapers Ltd: QBD 15 May 2019

‘(1) At common law, a statement is defamatory of the claimant if, but only if, (a) it imputes conduct which would tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people generally, and (b) the imputation crosses the common law threshold of seriousness, which is that it ‘[substantially] affects in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards him or has a tendency so to do’: Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB) [2011] 1 WLR 1985 [96] (Tugendhat J).
(2) ‘Although the word ‘affects’ in this formulation might suggest otherwise, it is not necessary to establish that the attitude of any individual person towards the claimant has in fact been adversely affected to a substantial extent, or at all. It is only necessary to prove that the meaning conveyed by the words has a tendency to cause such a consequence.’ Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2015] EWHC 2242 (QB) [2016] QB 402 [15(5)].

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1235 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 2013

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wright v Granath QBD 16-Jan-2020
Defamation across borders – Jurisdiction
The claimant began an action for defamation in an online publication. The Norwegian resident defendant had begun an action there seeking a declaration negating liability. The Court was now asked by the defendant whether under Lugano, the UK action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.638203

Control Risks v New English Library: CA 1989

In a defamation claim, there is a parallel to be drawn between what is necessary in respect of the defence of justification and what is necessary where the defence of fair comment is raised. Where justification is pleaded, a defendant is required to spell out the meaning of the words which he would seek to justify – the ‘Lucas-Box’ particulars.
Nicholls LJ said: ‘In my view by parity of reasoning, when fair comment is pleaded the defendant must spell out, with sufficient precision to enable the plaintiff to know what case he has to meet, what is the comment which the defendant will seek to say attracts the fair comment defence.’

Judges:

Nicholls LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 183, [1989] 3 All ER 577

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 by:

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 – Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Feb-2006
The defendant sought to defend the claim for defamation by claiming fair comment. The claimant said that the relevant facts were not known to the defendant at the time of the publication.
Held: To claim facts in aid of a defence of fair . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Burstein CA 22-Jun-2007
The newspaper appealed an award of damages for defamation after its theatre critic’s review of an opera written by the claimant. The author said the article made him appear to sympathise with terrorism.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Keene LJ . .
Cited – Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Foley and Others QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to strike out defences of justification and fair comment saying that the pleadings were unsustainable for lack of clarity.
Held: The pleadings did contain obfuscation, and ‘if there is a viable defence of justification or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.238936

Wallis v Valentine and others: CA 5 Mar 2002

The court dismissed an appeal by the claimant against the striking out of his claim as an abuse of process. That was an extreme case where the judge had found that even if the claimant succeeded his damages would be very modest, perhaps nominal, and not such as could justify the costs of an action which was estimated to last 14 days in circumstances where the claimant had no assets. Furthermore the claimant was not motivated by a desire for vindication, but was pursuing a vendetta.

Judges:

Sir Murray Stuart-Smith

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 345, [2003] EMLR 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – 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 by:

Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
See Also – Wallis v Valentine and Others CA 18-Jul-2002
The claimant in a defamation case appealed a decision to strike out his claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process, being intended to act as an harassment of the defendant, or to cause commercial embarrassment or undue cost.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.216998

Hallam Estates Ltd and Another v Baker: QBD 24 Apr 2012

The court considered whether proceedings for defamation had been served within time. The words complained of were issed in May 2010, the proceedings were issued just in time, and service had not been within time, but had been within an extension of time granted by the court.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1046 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452979

McGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others: QBD 30 Mar 2012

The claimant sued in defamation over postings in a review of a book on the Amazon web-site and otherwise. The court now heard interim applications.
Held: Various elements of the claim were struck out as being without value or prospect of succes, leaving only a request for an injunction aainst the fourth defendant.

Judges:

Moloney QC

Citations:

[2012] EWHC B3 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1996 1, Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 19

Cited by:

Appeal from – McGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others CA 5-Feb-2013
The claimant appealed against a finding that the defendant Amazon was bound to succeed in its defence under the 2002 Regulations against the claim in defamation, and that the claim should be dismissed as an abuse of process under Jameel. He had . .
See Also – McGrath v Independent Print Ltd QBD 26-Jul-2013
The claimant alleged defamation in an article on the defendant’s web-site discussing a failure of his earlier defamation action. He now sought directions for a jury trial. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452712

Marrinan v Vibert: CA 2 Jan 1963

A tortious conspiracy was alleged in the conduct of a civil action. The plaintiff appealed against rejection of his claim.
Held: The appeal failed as an attempt to circumvent the immunity of a wirness in defamation by framing a claim in conspiracy. Sellers LJ considered whether a complaint was privileged: ‘Whatever form of action is sought to be derived from what was said or done in the course of judicial proceedings must suffer the same fate of being barred by the rule which protects witnesses in their evidence given before the court and in the preparation of the evidence which is to be so given.’
Sellers LJ said: ‘It has been sought in this case to draw a difference between the action of libel and slander, the action of defamation, and that which is set up in this case, one of conspiracy. I can see no difference in the principles of the matter at all. Whatever form of action is sought to be derived from what was said or done in the course of judicial proceedings must suffer the same fate of being barred by the rule which protects witnesses in their evidence before the court and in the preparation of the evidence which is to be so given.’

Judges:

Sellers LJ

Citations:

[1963] 1 QB 528

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Marrinan v Vibert QBD 1963
The plaintiff brought an action claiming damages for conspiracy against two police officers alleging they had conspired together to make false statements defamatory of him as a barrister.
Held: The claim was struck out. Even a conspiracy to . .
Approved – Cabassi v Vila 12-Dec-1940
High Court of Australia – The claim sought to sidestep the rule giving immuity to witnesses before a court by alleging a conspiracy to give false evidence.
Held: Starke J said: ‘But it does not matter whether the action is framed as an action . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Silcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 24-May-1996
The claimant had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock. The only substantial evidence was in the form of the notes of interview he said were fabricated by senior officers. His eventual appeal on this basis was not resisted. He now appealed . .
Cited – Singh v Moorlands Primary School and Another CA 25-Jul-2013
The claimant was a non-white head teacher, alleging that her school governors and local authority had undermined and had ‘deliberately endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation’ against her as an Asian . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Defamation

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.270827

Associated Leisure (Phonographic Equipment Co) Ltd v Associated Newspapers Ltd: CA 1970

The defendant sought to be allowed to amend its pleadings to add justification. They now appealed against refusal.
Held: The amendment was allowed. However, in general, in a libel action, if the defendant seeks at a late stage to amend his defence by adding a plea of justification, his application will be closely inquired into and it will be allowed where he has shown due diligence in making his inquiries and investigations, but it may well be refused if he has been guilty of delay or has not made proper inquiries earlier.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Like a charge of fraud, [counsel] must not put a plea of justification on the record unless he has clear and sufficient evidence to support it.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1970] 2 QB 450, [1970] 2 All ER 754

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Atkinson v Fitzwalter CA 25-Mar-1987
A court should not grant leave to amend a pleading into a form which is liable to be struck out. The more serious the allegation that is made, the more clearly satisfied must the Court be that no prejudice will be caused that cannot be compensated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.465098

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 justification should be subject to the same stringent requirements as it is in other contexts’.

Judges:

Pill, Elias LJJ, Sharp J

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 423, [2012] EMLR 25

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stocker v Stocker QBD 10-Jun-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by his former wife in a post on facebook. The posting and associatedeEmails were said falsely to have accused him of serious abuse, and that the accusations had undermined his relationship with his new partner.
See Also – Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Foley and Another (No 2) QBD 30-Jul-2012
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452473

KC v MGN Ltd: QBD 5 Mar 2012

The claimant sought damages in defamation. His child had been murdered by his estranged former partner and her new man. In the course of extraordinarily intense publicity the defendant had wrongly described him as a convicted rapist. He was and remained a man of entirely good character. An agreed apology had been published but the parties had failed to agree damages. Further misattributions of the rape conviction during the negotiations made matters worse.
Held: The court fixed a starting point figure of andpound;150,000 and then made an appropriate reduction (assessed at 50%) to take account of all mitigating factors, including the willingness of MGN Ltd to use the offer of amends procedure. He awarded KC andpound;75,000.

Judges:

Bean J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 483 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cairns v Modi CA 31-Oct-2012
Three appeals against the levels of damages awards were heard together, and the court considered the principles to be applied.
Held: In assessing compensation following a libel, the essential question was how much loss and damage did the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451793

Kirkegaard v Smith: QBD 11 Dec 2019

Meaning

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Julian Knowles

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3393 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hayden v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Mar-2020
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant, and the court now considered the meanings of the words complained of. Another person had been held by police for seven hours after identifying the claimant as a transgendered man.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.645984

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.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 310 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See also – 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 . .
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 by:

Appeal from – Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation CA 5-Mar-2013
The claimant said that the defendant, in its Top Gear programme in a review of its car, caused it damage through malicious falsehood and defamation. They appealed against a finding that the words used were incapable of bearing the defamatory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Torts – Other

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451478

Citation Plc v Ellis Whittam Ltd: QBD 14 Mar 2012

The company parties were competitors. The claimant alleged slander and malicious falsehood. Tugendhat J considered and reviewed the law applicable to an application for an interim restraining injunction, and a final order granted at trial.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 549 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

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 by:

Cited – Jeeg Global Ltd v Hare QBD 29-Mar-2012
The claimant had obtained an order restricting the defendant from asserting any kind of insolvency in the claimant. The defendant now sought the strike out of the claim as an abuse of process. He said that any such disclosure had been on one . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452161

Zinda v ARK Academies (Schools): QBD 16 Dec 2011

The claimant appealed against summary dismissal of his claim for defamation, the action being dismissed a being out of time, and without merit. Other actions had been begun and either dismissed or compromised arising from the circumstances surrounding the dismisal of the claimant by the defendant.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3394 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation, Limitation

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450083

Hunt v Evening Standard Ltd: QBD 18 Feb 2011

The defamation claimant sought that certain paragraphs of the defence should be struck out.
Held: Several paragraphs of the defence were struck out, and others left.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 272 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 29-May-2002
A libel defence of justification which was based on ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion’ must focus on conduct of claimant that gives rise to suspicion. It was not permissible to rely upon hearsay. Defendant may not plead as ‘grounds’ material which . .
Cited – Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Dec-2000
Where a defendant in a defamation action sought to reduce the damages payable by arguing that the claimant had a reduced or damaged reputation, he could include evidence about particular facts only where these were directly connected to the . .
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 – 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 – O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 28-Apr-2005
The claimant sought damages against the police, and wanted to bring in evidence of previous misconduct by the officers on a similar fact basis. They had been imprisoned and held for several years based upon admissions which they said they had . .
Cited – Plato Films v Speidel HL 1961
The plaintiff had been the Supreme Commander of the Axis Land Forces in Central Europe. He brought an action claiming that he had been defamed in a film showing him privy to the murders of King Alexander of Yugoslavia and M. Barthou in 1934, and as . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Guardian News and Media Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2008
The defendant newspaper published articles making allegations as to the use of offshore tax avoidance arrangements. The claimant sought damages also in malicious falsehood. The defendants sought to rely on an offer of amends served only a few . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.429738

Davison v Habeeb and Others: QBD 25 Nov 2011

Parkes QC J recognised that ‘there is in my judgment an arguable case that [Google Inc] is the publisher of the material complained of, and that at least following notification it is liable for publication of that material’.

Judges:

Parkes QC J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3031 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd QBD 2-Mar-2012
The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant company offering internet search facilities. The words complained of had been published in a blog, and in comments published on the blog.
Held: Jurisdiction should be declined. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449390

Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 11 Nov 2011

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2677 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Nov-2003
A policemen sued in defamation. The newspaper pleaded Reynolds qualified privilege.
Held: The plea was struck out. There has developed tendency of defendants to plead qualified privilege since the Reynolds decision in ‘rather waffly . .
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 8-Apr-2005
. .
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Mar-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation, saying that the defendant newspaper (Daily Mail) had implied abuse of his friendship with a Police Commissioner to obtain contracts. The defendant denied any meaning defamatory of the claimant.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449392

ABC v Google Llc: QBD 14 Nov 2019

The claimant complained that the defendant was publishing material relating to an historic conviction which was now spent. He had applied for anonymity, and had been granted it temporarily, but had since failed to comply with an order requiring him to identify himself to the court and to the defendant. He applied from relief from sanctions in respect of that failure, namely the striking out of his claim.
Held: Refused. The application was in substance, an improper attempt to circumvent his failed appeal against the Order of Mr Justice Nicklin: ‘This is a paradigmatic example of the conduct of a litigant which has prevented the court and the parties from conducting the litigation efficiently and at proportionate cost. The Claimant has shown no respect for the Orders of this Court.’

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3020 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Media, Defamation

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.645952

Howland -v- Blake Manufacturing Co: 1892

‘the mere furnishing by one person of some of the materials used by another in the preparation of a libellous article does not constitute a publication of it by the former if, when printed, the article as a whole is something very different from the material so furnished by him’

Citations:

(1892) 156 Mass R 543

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.646000

Doyle v Smith: QBD 2 Nov 2018

A claimant may struggle to identify, or to produce evidence from, all those to whom an article was published and in whose eyes the claimant’s reputation was damaged

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2935 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.628227

Serafin v Malkiewicz and Others: CA 17 May 2019

Appeal from rejection of claim in defamation

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 852

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Serafin v Malkiewicz and Others QBD 24-Nov-2017
Claim for damages and injunctive relief in the torts of libel and misuse of private information in connection with an article published in October 2015 in the Second Defendant’s newspaper, Nowy Czas.
Held: The defence of justification having . .

Cited by:

Cited – ZC v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust QBD 26-Jul-2019
Defamation/privacy claims against doctors failed
The claimant, seeking damages for alleged defamation, now asked for the case to be anonymised.
Held: The conditions for anonymisation were not met. The anonymity would be retained temporarily until any time for appeal had passed.
As to . .
Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.637523

Burgon MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another: QBD 6 Feb 2019

Pounds 30,000 was awarded to an MP for an online article, published on a national newspaper website by a very prominent political correspondent, the Sun’s political editor, that meant that he ‘joined a band which as he knew took great pleasure in using Nazi symbols’. The imputation that he was prepared to associate himself with pleasure in Nazi symbols is substantially more serious for an MP.

Judges:

Dingemans J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 195 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.633237

Suttle v Walker: QBD 18 Jan 2019

A joint award of pounds 40,000 was made for defamation and harassment in a case where the harassment alone justified an award at the upper end of the Vento scale [58], being a campaign in which the claimant was ‘clearly and deliberately targeted’ to create a ‘foreseeable response’ which was ‘vicious and frightening’ and ‘calculated to (and did) whip up hatred for the Claimant and put her in fear for her safety’. The ‘real . . reputational harm’ was adequately compensated within that award.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 396 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Information, Damages

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.634223

Fentiman v Marsh: QBD 31 Jul 2019

The court awarded pounds 45,000 general damages and an additional pounds 10,000 in aggravated damages in respect of three posts containing allegations of computer hacking or strong grounds to suspect such conduct in the third post, published to approximately 100, 230 and 188 persons respectively on blogs. The separate aggravated damages award took account of several matters including that the publications were made against a background of earlier proceedings and the Defence asserted that the claimant was a liar.

Judges:

Richard Spearman QC HHJ

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2099 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.641717