Judges:

Mrs Justice Steyn DBE

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 231 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.658664

Appeal from strike out of defamation action

Judges:

Mr Justice Tugendhat

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1781 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.655909

(Supreme Court of New South Wales) Kirby J said: ‘Having made the press release, the defendants may be taken as having intended its dissemination to the news media. However, if, as they contend, the press release was not defamatory of the plaintiffs, then its republication by others in some different form (which may be defamatory) is not their responsibility. In short, responsibility for republication presupposes, not simply the dissemination of material to persons likely to reproduce that material, but that the material disseminated was defamatory.’

Judges:

Kirby J

Citations:

[2000] NSWSC 281

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

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: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.646001

Lopes LJ identified four ways in which a person could be liable for the republication of a defamatory statement:
i) where a defendant has authorised the republication of the statement;
ii) where a defendant intended that the statement should be republished;
iii) where the republication of the statement was ‘the natural consequence’ of the original publication; or
iv) where there was a moral obligation to republish the statement.

Judges:

Lopes LJ

Citations:

(1891) 60 LJQB 231

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: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.645999

Assessment of harm to reputation has never been just a ‘numbers game’: ‘one well-directed arrow [may] hit the bull’s eye of reputation’ and cause more damage than indiscriminate firing

Judges:

Sharp J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2719 (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: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.560103

Appeal against an order giving judgment for the respondent, Mr Miller, against the appellant, Associated Newspapers Ltd, the publishers of the Daily Mail, in an action for libel.
Moore-Bick LJ (giving the judgment of the Court) summarised the task of the trial judge when assessing a defence of truth to a Chase level 2 allegation: ‘It follows from . . the fact that the existence of grounds for suspicion is to be judged objectively, that the question for the court when considering a defence of justification is whether, viewed at the date of publication, the claimant had behaved in a way that would give a reasonable person grounds for suspecting him of the wrongdoing in question. That much was not in dispute. Nor, subject to one point, was it in dispute that the reasonable person is to be taken to be aware of all the primary facts and matters subsisting at the date of publication: see King, principles (8) and (9). The allegation that the claimant has behaved in such a way as to bring suspicion on himself necessarily assumes the response of a reasonable person to observable primary facts. A person’s conduct can be observed and assessed, but his state of mind cannot, except by inference from other, primary, facts . .’ And: ‘It is necessary to remember that a Chase Level 2 imputation involves an allegation that the claimant has by his conduct brought suspicion upon himself. That is a matter to be judged objectively by reference to the facts, taken as a whole, as they were at the time of publication and as they would be viewed by an ordinary reasonable person.’
Explaining the importance that it was an assessment of the totality of the evidence, Moore-Bick LJ added: ‘. . in seeking to justify a Chase Level 2 imputation, both parties are entitled to rely on facts as they were at the date of publication, whether they knew them or not . .’

Judges:

Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 39

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: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.520738

Andrew Smith J, dismissed a defendant’s application for summary judgment, saying that that it was not fatal to the claim that the claimant could not plead or prove that the defendant caused or authorised publication of ‘the specific defamatory words of which complaint is made’, as opposed to the imputation(s) arising from them.
Where the original words of the source or contributor are defamatory of the claimant and s/he knows that his words are liable to be republished, it is not necessary to show that the published libel is verbally and literally the identical communication which originated with the defendant provided that the sense and substance or the same defamatory message is conveyed

Judges:

Andrew Smith J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1630 (Comm)

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.
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: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.510813

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2958 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Spiller and Another v Joseph and Others SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants had published remarks on its website about the reliability of the claimant. When sued in defamation, they pleaded fair comment, but that was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The defendants’ appeal succeeded, and the fair . .

Cited by:

See Also – Joseph and Others v Spiller and Another QBD 20-Nov-2012
Costs after finding in favour of claimants but with merely nominal damages. Tugendhat J explained that his decision to award only nominal damages was because he had concluded ‘it would be an affront to justice if [the claimant] were to be awarded . .
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: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.465374

The claimant alleged that the defendant, the chief executive of the Law Society had slandered him in a conversation with another senior lawyer. The claimant now sought summary judgment against the claimant, saying that the defence had no realistic prospect of success.
Held: The claim was dismissed as an abuse. Whilst the alleged libel was serious, the slander had been to only one person, and the repetition of the libel by the claimant suggested strongly that he did not himself condider it very damaging.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2667 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 1, Defamation Act 1996 8 9

Citing:

Cited – Downtex v Flatley CA 2-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages for defamation and breach of contract. The claimants had purchased a business from the defendant, which contract included a clause requiring the defendant to say nothing damaging about the business. The defendant . .
Cited – Lait v Evening Standard Ltd CA 28-Jul-2011
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in an article regarding her expenses claims as an MP. She appealed against summary judgment in favour of the defence in their pleaded defence of honest comment.
Held: Laws LJ said: ‘The . .
Cited – Bata v Bata CA 1948
The defendant wrote a circular letter in Zurich libelling the plaintiff, who was chairman of a company in England, but who personally lived in Ontario, Canada. That circular letter was addressed to the deputy manager and managing director of the . .
Cited – Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .

Cited by:

Cited – QRS v Beach and Another QBD 26-Sep-2014
The court gave its reasons for granting an interim injunction to prevent the defendants publshing materials on their web-sites which were said to harrass the claimants.
Held: Whilst it was important to protect the identity of the claimants, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447533

The defendant sought clarification through the court as to the meanings inherent in the words complained of.
Held: The application failed. ‘I do not consider the ordinary reasonable reader would be perverse to conclude that the suspicions arguably raised in the headlines are not dispelled by the text of the article itself; and I have concluded that read as a whole, and applying the relevant principles to the issue as it arises now, the article is capable of conveying the suspicion that the Claimant will ‘lift the lid on the Blairs’ marriage’ and their ‘sex secrets’ for substantial financial reward.’

Judges:

Sharp J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1567 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chalmers v Payne 1835
Bane and Antidote Doctrine – Take them as One
The court considered the bane and antidote doctrine in defamation. B Alderson said: ‘But the question here is, whether the matter be slanderous or not, which is a question of the Jury; who are to take the whole together and say whether the result of . .
Cited – Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 31-Mar-1995
The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual . .
Cited – Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres and Another CA 23-Jul-2001
The claimant appealed after closing her action for an alleged defamation by the respondents in a leaflet published by them. She challenged an interim decision by the judge as to the meaning of the words complained of.
Held: The leaflet made . .
Cited – 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 – 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 – Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others QBD 14-Oct-2005
The court decided the issue of what meaning the words complained of would have been understood to bear. The ordinary reader of an article may well not think in legalistic terms such as ‘strong grounds to suspect’ or ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ . .
Cited – Charman v Orion Group Publishing Group Ltd and others CA 10-Oct-2007
. .
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: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.440899

The claimant brought defamation proceedings after she had found and returned a valuable necklace belonging to the first respondent. The claim had been dismissed as an abuse of process.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed: ‘there is such a formidable range of problems with the appellant’s claims that the judge was cumulatively correct to strike them out.’ The appellant ‘would at best recover minimal damages at huge expense to the parties and of court time’.

Judges:

Sir Anthony May P QBD, Cranwath, Moore-Bick LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 716, [2010] 1 WLR 2673, [2011] EMLR 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Khader v Aziz and Another QBD 31-Jul-2009
The defendant sought to strike out a claim in defamation. Acting on behalf of his client the solicitor defendant was said to have called a journalist and defamed the claimant. The words were denied.
Held: Assuming (which was denied) that the . .
Cited – Somerville v Hawkins 1851
It is necessary for a claimant who wishes to prove malice in an alleged defamation to plead and prove facts which are more consistent with its presence than with its absence. Mawle J said: ‘it is certainly not necessary in order to enable a . .
Cited – 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 – Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling and Lom CA 28-Jul-1995
The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying . .
Cited – Regan v Taylor CA 9-Mar-2000
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant, his then opponent’s solicitor. He now appealed summary judgment against him.
Held: A solicitor properly appointed by his client to represent his client in legal proceedings and responding to . .
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 by:

Cited – Lait v Evening Standard Ltd CA 28-Jul-2011
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in an article regarding her expenses claims as an MP. She appealed against summary judgment in favour of the defence in their pleaded defence of honest comment.
Held: Laws LJ said: ‘The . .
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: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.417711

An ordinary business representative or adjunct of the associated agents, or any of them, cannot escape iability in defamation by regarding the communication with him as usual in the course of business.

Citations:

[1894] 1 QB 842

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling and Lom CA 28-Jul-1995
The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.374707

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 to resolve and the facts they are invited to find.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 398 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 27-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 7-Mar-2006
The claimant resided in Romania, and sought damages for libel. The magazine had obtained an order for security for costs. An offer had been made to cover the sum ordered, and no stifling could now happen.
Held: Any order for security costs in . .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 12-Oct-2007
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 23-Nov-2007
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant appealed from a decision that the occasion of publication was not privileged. He sought Reynolds protection.
Held: Appeal dismissed. . .
Cited – Polly Peck PLC v Trelford CA 1986
The plaintiffs complained of the whole of one article and parts of two other articles published about them in The Observer. The defamatory sting was that Mr Asil Nadir (the fourth plaintiff) had deceived or negligently misled shareholders, . .
Cited – Rechem International Ltd v Express Newspapers CA 19-Jun-1992
Neill LJ said: ‘A balance has to be struck between the legitimate defence of free speech and free comment on the one hand and on the other hand the costs which may be involved if every peripheral issue is examined and debated at the trial.’ and . .
Cited – Hickinbotham v Leach 1842
To a declaration for words, imputing to the plaintiff, a pawnbroker, that he had committed the unfair and dishonourable practice of duffing, that is, of replenishing or doing up goods, being in his hands in a damaged or worn-out condition, and . .
Cited – 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. . .
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 – 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 – Dingle v Associated Newspapers HL 1964
The plaintiff complained of an article written in the Daily Mail which included the reporting of a report of a Parliamentary select committee. The reporting of the select committee’s report was privileged under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. At . .
Cited – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (2) CA 26-May-1999
The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be . .

Cited by:

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: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.314302

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 being a source of the information contained within the relevant document. There are various acts that can give rise to legal responsibility, for example, encouraging the primary author, supplying him with information intending or knowing that it will be re-published, or, if one is in a position to do so, instructing or authorising him to publish it.’
Eady J considered the role of a jury not only in coming to conclusions of primary fact but also in drawing any appropriate inferences, saying: ”First, it seems that I should address the primary facts relied upon by the claimant for establishing the defendant’s responsibility for the publication of the 12th January letter. The burden is upon the claimant to establish those facts at trial. At this stage, I should make all assumptions in favour of the claimant so far as pleaded facts are concerned.
Again, in so far as evidence has been introduced for the purpose of the present application, I should assume that those facts will be established, save in so far as it can be demonstrated on written evidence that any particular factual allegation is indisputably false.
The next question is whether, on the facts assumed, a properly directed jury could draw the inference for which the claimant contends. In this case, of course, the inference is that the second defendant was, in some sense, a participant in the publication of the letter. I should only rule out the case against the second defendant if I am satisfied that a jury would be perverse to draw that inference . .
If the defendant’s case is so clear that it cannot be disputed, there would be nothing left for a jury to determine. If, however, there is room for legitimate argument, either on any of the primary facts or as to the feasibility of the inference being drawn, then a judge should not prevent the claimant having the issue or issues resolved by a jury. I should not conduct a mini-trial or attempt to decide the factual dispute of first appearances when there is the possibility that cross-examination might undermine the case that the defendant is putting forward.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1692 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bray v Deutsche Bank Ag QBD 12-Jun-2008
A former employee of the defendant bank sued in defamation after the bank published a press release about its results which he said was critical of him.
Held: Where there is a real issue as to whether the words are defamatory of the claimant, . .
Cited – 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 – 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. . .
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: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.270318

A person who supplies another with information intending or knowing that it is liable to be republished has been held to be prima facie liable for the publication of what s/he has provided

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1188 (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: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.271067

Where a declaration in slander sets out words alleged to have been uttered, some in one discourse, and the remainder in a second discourse, and there are in form but two counts, each containing only the words alleged to have been uttered in one discourse, the declaration will be treated as containing only two counts, though each of such two counts contains a separate allegations of the uttering of different words in the particular discourse. Therefore, if in each count there be any words set out which are slanderous, judgment for plaintiff will not be arrested after verdict, though the damages be general and some of the separate allegations recite only words not actionable.
The original publisher of a defamatory statement had no privilege to repeat it when asked for an explanation.

Citations:

[1846] EngR 593, (1846) 8 QB 841, (1846) 115 ER 1091

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Alo – Mary Griffiths v Lewis 21-Apr-1845
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling and Lom CA 28-Jul-1995
The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.302488

The court expressed concern at the costs being incurred in defamation cases after the introduction of conditional fee agreements. Additional elements in an abuse of process case may include the ability of the claimant to pursue a claim at no risk in costs, the exposure of the defendant win or lose to a costs burden and the consequent ‘chilling effect’ upon the defendant’s freedom of expression.
Held: The three circumstances combined to give rise to a real unfairness to the defendants if the action were to proceed.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2442 (QB), [2004] EMLR 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – Kaschke v Gray and Another QBD 23-Jul-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendants had published a web page which falsely associated her with a terrorist gang in the 1970s. The defendants now sought a strike out of her claim as an abuse saying that a similar . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.198171

There had been publication in confidence to a single potential customer.
Held: When testing whether an occasion was one for qualified privilege, the court must look to all the circumstances.
Lord Buckmaster LC said: ‘Again, it is, I think, essential to consider every circumstance associated with the origin and publication of the defamatory matter, in order to ascertain whether the necessary conditions are satisfied by which alone protection can be obtained, but in this investigation it is important to keep distinct matter which would be solely evidence of malice, and matter which would show that the occasion itself was outside the area of protection.’

Judges:

Lord Buckmaster LC

Citations:

[1916] 1 AC 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) CA 12-Mar-2001
The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication.
Held: It is necessary for the defendants to . .
Cited – Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling and Lom CA 28-Jul-1995
The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.194506

In a defamation action, it is open to the defendant to justify the imputation by establishing that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff from an objective point of view.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘But the jury are concerned with whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff from an objective point of view. When considering this issue, the other side of the picture is relevant. The defendant cannot fetter the scope of the plaintiff’s evidence in rebuttal of the charge’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

[1996] EMLR 429

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Shah and Another v Standard Chartered Bank CA 2-Apr-1998
The plaintiffs appealed against refusal of orders striking out the defences of justification to their libel action.
Held: The words complained of bore an accusation of money laundering. A plea of justification based upon a reasonable belief in . .
Mentioned – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.198169

The defendant newspaper ran a story about investigations into several police officers at Stoke Newington police station, who had ultimately been cleared. The newspaper had pleaded a Lucas-Box meaning (2) that there were sufficient grounds for investigating the allegations against the claimants, and now wished to add a meaning (4) that the claimants had been reasonably suspected of various crimes.
Held: ‘A statement that a police officer is under is investigation is no doubt defamatory, but the sting in the libel is not as sharp as the statement that he has by his conduct brought suspicion on himself. That point is reflected in a passage in the speech of Lord Devlin in Lewis already cited which refers to ‘ three categories of justification – proof of the fact of the enquiry, proof of reasonable grounds for it and proof of guilt’. We do therefore see a significant difference between subparagraphs (2) and (4). The latter calls the plaintiffs’ conduct into question in a way that the former does not, and subparagraph (4) can be allowed as an amendment only if it is both a possible meaning and is capable of being supported by particulars which are not hearsay and (in the Shah sense) focus on the conduct of individual plaintiffs. A less stringent test is appropriate for subparagraph (2), as the plaintiffs’ advisers seem to have gone some way to acknowledging, as noted above.’

Citations:

[2002] EMLR 39

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – Jameel and Another v Times Newspapers Limited CA 21-Jul-2004
The defendant had published a newspaper article linking the claimant to terrorist activity. The defendants argued that no full accusation was made, but only that the claimant was under investigation for such behaviour, and that the article had . .
Cited – Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.198170

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 rise to interminable issues which would have but a very remote bearing on the question in dispute, which is to what extent the reputation which he actually possesses has been damaged by the defamatory matter complained of’. The court was asked as to the evidence which might be called by a defendant relating to the character of the plaintiff: ‘Speaking generally the law recognises in every man a right to have the estimation in which he stands in the opinion of others unaffected by false statements to his discredit; and if such false statements are made without lawful excuse, and damage results to the person of whom they are made, he has a right of action.’
Cave J said: ‘The law recognises in every man a right to have the estimation in which he stands in the opinion of others unaffected by false statements to his discredit.’ For this purpose, harm to reputation is capable of occurring on each occasion when a false statement referring to a complainant is communicated to another or others: for it is then that they may be likely to think the worse of the complainant.

Judges:

Cave J

Citations:

[1882] 8 QBD 491

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited (2) QBD 23-Apr-1999
Evidence of Reputation Admissible but Limited
The plaintiff had brought an action for damages for defamation. The defendant wished to amend its defence to include allegations that the plaintiff had courted litigation by his action.
Held: A judge assessing damages should be able see the . .
Approved – 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 – Berkoff v Burchill and and Times Newspapers Limited CA 31-Jul-1996
The plaintiff actor said that an article by the defendant labelling him ugly was defamatory. The defendant denied that the words were defamatory.
Held: It is for the jury to decide in what context the words complained of were used and whether . .
Cited – Ames and Another v The Spamhaus Project Ltd and Another QBD 27-Jan-2015
Warby J said: ‘ . . but as practitioners in this field are well aware, it is generally impractical for a claimant to seek out witnesses to say that they read the words complained of and thought the worse of the claimant’ . .
Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.183035

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 had become available only after publication. A Lucas-Box meaning might fall into one of three categories: ‘The sting of a libel may be capable of meaning that a claimant has in fact committed some serious act, such as murder. Alternatively it may be suggested that the words mean that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he/she has committed such an act. A third possibility is that they may mean that there are grounds for investigating whether he/she has been responsible for such an act.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1101 (QB), [2003] EMLR 11

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 by:

Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL QBD 20-Jan-2004
It is almost inevitable that in a Reynolds privilege case to be tried by jury there will be presented to them a list of questions, sometimes no doubt formidably long. The object is to enable the judge to have the factual matrix upon which to make . .
Cited – 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 . .
Appeal from – 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 – 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 . .
Cited – Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 30-Jun-2006
The claimant, a professional cyclist, sought damages in defamation, saying that the defendant newspaper had implied that he had taken performance enhancing drugs. The case was to be heard by judge alone. The court considered how to deal with the . .
Cited – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.175312

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 establish that they had a duty to publish the article if they are to be entitled to common law privilege. Applying the ‘duty-interest’ test from Reynolds would work no injustice on these facts and there would be no violation of ECHR Article 10 if the defendants were not permitted to rely on the proposed amendment in support of their plea of qualified privilege.
The time to check the factors of the decision to publish was that of publication.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Brooke And Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 536

Links:

Bailii

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 – Gilpin v Fowler 9-Feb-1854
The word `privilege’ means the existence of a set of circumstances in which the presumption of malice was negatived. `Instead of the expression `privileged communication’ it would be more correct to say that the communication was made on an occasion . .
Cited – Perera v Peiris PC 1949
Qualified privilege claim upheld
(Ceylon) The ‘Ceylon Daily News’ had published extracts from a report of the Bribery Commission which was critical of Dr. Perera’s lack of frankness in his evidence. The Judicial Committee upheld a claim to qualified privilege. In the light of the . .
Cited – GKR Karate (UK) Ltd v Yorkshire Post Newspapers Ltd (No1) CA 21-Jan-2000
It was arguable that a defendant in defamation proceedings could pray in aid in his claim for qualified privilege circumstances not known to him at the time of the publication: ‘there was a real, if problematic, prospect of success.’
May LJ . .
Cited – Blackshaw v Lord CA 1984
Claim to privilege must be precisely focused
The Daily Telegraph carried an article headed ‘Incompetence at ministry cost pounds 52 million’ recording that a number of senior civil servants had been reprimanded after investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. The plaintiff had been in . .
Cited – Toogood v Spyring 1834
Qualified Privilege of Bona Fide Words Under Duty
The defence of qualified privilege arises where the statement in question was bona fide and without malicious intent to injure: ‘In general, an action lies for the malicious publication of statements which are false in fact, and injurious to the . .
Cited – Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling and Lom CA 28-Jul-1995
The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying . .
Cited – Jones v Baird HL 1916
The House set out how a court should decide whether qualified privilege applied: ‘If the document is capable of a defamatory meaning, then may be considered the point as to whether the occasion was privileged or not. In considering the question . .
Cited – London Association for Protection of Trade v Greenlands Ltd HL 1916
There had been publication in confidence to a single potential customer.
Held: When testing whether an occasion was one for qualified privilege, the court must look to all the circumstances.
Lord Buckmaster LC said: ‘Again, it is, I . .
Cited – McCartan Turkington Breen (A Firm) v Times Newspapers Limited HL 2-Nov-2000
(Northern Ireland) The defendant reported a press conference at which the claims denying the criminal responsibility of an army private were made. The report was severely critical of the claimants, who then sued in defamation. The defendants claimed . .
Cited – Webb v Times Publishing Co Ltd 1960
The Times newspaper published a report of the criminal trial in Switzerland of a British subject. When sued in defamation they sought to rely upon the defence of fair reporting of judicial proceedings.
Held: A blanket protection for reporting . .
Cited – Purcell v Sowler CA 1877
A Manchester newspaper reported a public meeting of poor-law guardians, in which a medical officer was said to have neglected to attend pauper patients when sent for.
Held: Publication was not privileged. The Court looked beyond the . .
Cited – London Artists Ltd v Littler CA 10-Dec-1968
The defence of fair comment on matters of public interest is not to be defined too closely. Lord Denning MR said: ‘Whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going . .
Cited – GKR Karate (UK) Limited v Porch, Yorkshire Post Newspaper, Holmes QBD 17-Jan-2000
The claimant sought damages alleging defamation. The judge ordered certain elements of the case to be heard first, and others, if necessary later. Although the case had been begun under the old rules, the new civil procedure regime gave the judge . .
Cited – Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway ECHR 20-May-1999
A newspaper and its editor complained that their right to freedom of expression had been breached when they were found liable in defamation proceedings for statements in articles which they had published about the methods used by seal hunters in the . .
Cited – Saad Al-Fagih v HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd QBD 28-Jul-2000
The court considered the factors which the court should take into account when carrying out the balancing process with regard to the defence of qualified privilege because of the public interest: ‘Some factors relate to the quality, status and . .
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. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Paddick v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 10-Dec-2003
The defendant sought disclosure of full statements used by the claimant . Extracts only had been supplied, and he said they contained private and confidential material.
Held: The application failed. The claimant had stated that the balance of . .
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 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 . .
See Also – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.135538

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 343 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.658843

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 510

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 12-Nov-2009
The claimant sought damages for an article in the defendant’s newspaper, a review of her book which said she had falsely claimed to have interviewed artists including the review author and that the claimant allowed interviewees control over what was . .

Cited by:

See Also – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 16-Jun-2010
The claimant said that a review of her book was defamatory and a malicious falsehood. The defendant now sought summary judgment or a ruling as to the meaning of the words complained of.
Held: The application for summary judgment succeeded. The . .
See Also – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 27-May-2011
The defendant appealed against an order refusing trial by judge alone on the basis that the application had been made out of time. . .
See Also – Telegraph Media Group Ltd v Thornton CA 22-Jun-2011
. .
See Also – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 26-Jul-2011
The claimant alleged defamation and malicious falsehood in an article published and written by the defendants. She complained that she was said to have fabricated an interview with the second defendant for her book. An interview of sorts had now . .
See Also – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 4-Feb-2011
The defendant sought permission to amend its defence to the claim in malicious falsehood. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442425

The court assessed damages for defamation.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2037 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Defamation

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442460

Judges:

Mrs Justice Collins Rice

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3522 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.656935

Application for pre-trial directions in a claim for libel.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2948 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.554087

Citations:

[2009] NIQB 29

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Defamation

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.346502

Application to enforce the defendant’s, Philip Flanagan’s, qualified offer to make amends in relation to a defamatory statement

Citations:

[2016] NIQB 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Defamation

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.559549

The defendant sought a strike out of the claim in defamation, saying that postings made on its web-sites were fair and accurate reports of court proceedings published contemporaneously. The claimant solicitor had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings by the Law Society. The articles had been removed on the day a complaint was made.
Held: The claim was struck out. The fact that a website contains a mixture of content that is user generated and material that is written by or is proactively chosen by the operator of the website does not preclude the operator of the website from relying upon Regulation 19 so far as the user generated content is concerned: ‘the defence which is primarily relied upon is that contained within Regulation 19. I am quite satisfied from the evidence that this defendant is indeed entitled to avail itself of this defence, because it did not have actual knowledge of unlawful activity or information until it was pointed out by the claimant in January of this year. It does not necessarily accept that the activity was unlawful anyway in publishing the article but it was not aware of any complaint until that time. In any event, the material was taken down as I have described on 5 February as soon as the nature of the complaint reached the defendant. It is also clear that the recipient of the service was not acting under the authority or control of the service provider within the meaning of Regulation 19 . . So it seems to me in those circumstances that the defendant is entitled to rely upon that defence.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3205 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1996 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Addis v Crocker CA 1961
The proceedings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal attract absolute privilege even though they sat in private. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kaschke v Gray and Another QBD 29-Mar-2010
The defendant appealed against the refusal of the Master to strike out the claim in defamation in respect of a post by a third party on his unmoderated blog. The claimant said that the article accused her of an historic association with a terrorist . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.381769

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 333 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Downtex v Flatley CA 2-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages for defamation and breach of contract. The claimants had purchased a business from the defendant, which contract included a clause requiring the defendant to say nothing damaging about the business. The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.194154

Claimant’s renewed application to strike out the amended defence and counterclaim and for summary judgment

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 348 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.658844

The claimant brought defamation claims as to articles making allegations said to imply that the claimant had mistreated his wife. The defendant contended that, while inferences might sometimes suffice, s.1 (1) nevertheless required a claimant to prove on the balance of probabilities that he had suffered, or would be likely to suffer, serious reputational harm, and further that serious reputational harm could be expected to give rise to identifiable adverse consequences: and if no evidence of such consequences was adduced then the court should not be ready to conclude that there was serious reputational harm. Overall, it was said that the claimant’s interpretation was too restrictive and failed to give effect to the Parliamentary intention to eliminate claims not meeting the threshold of seriousness.
Held: Section 1(1) had the effect of making a publication not defamatory unless serious harm would have been or was caused to the reputation of the claimant. It was for the claimant to establish those facts.
If a defendant raised an issue that the harm was too slight to justify a claim then it would usually be preferable to try the matter as a preliminary issue.
‘In my judgment this approach [of the defendants] leads to the clear conclusion that in enacting s.1(1) Parliament intended to do more than just raise the threshold for defamation from a tendency to cause ‘substantial’ to ‘serious’ reputational harm. The intention was that claimants should have to go beyond showing a tendency to harm reputation. It is now necessary to prove as a fact on the balance of probabilities that serious reputational harm has been caused by, or is likely to result in future from, the publication complained of.’
. . And that the claimant’s arguments did not sufficiently account for the presence of the words ‘has caused’; and that s.1(1) had ‘subsumed all or most of the Jameel jurisdiction into a new and stiffer statutory test requiring consideration of actual harm’.
He continued: ‘In arriving at my conclusions I have given careful thought to Ms Page’s submissions that they involve imputing to Parliament – contrary to principle – an intention to revolutionise defamation law by implication, and to do so in a way that in practice risks defeating Parliament’s intention by making litigation in this area more, not less, expensive and complex. I regard both submissions as alarmist and ill-founded. I acknowledge the presumption against implied repeal of the common law. But I do not accept that my construction of s.1(1) is as radical as is suggested, or that it involves the dramatic consequences attributed to it by the claimant’s counsel. To the extent that my construction does involve the implied repeal or amendment of common law principles, an intention to achieve that is, in my judgment, necessarily implicit in Parliament’s choice of language.’
And he said this: ‘I accept that my construction of s.1(1) means that libel is no longer actionable without proof of damage, and that the legal presumption of damage will cease to play any significant role. These, however, are necessary consequences of what I regard as the natural and ordinary, indeed the obvious meaning of s.1(1). They are, moreover, consequences which had in practice already been brought about by previous developments. The HRA and the emergence of the Jameel jurisdiction which substantially eroded if they did not wholly undermine these common law rules. Since Jameel it has no longer been accurate other than technically to describe libel as actionable without proof of any damage. I cannot see this as a substantial argument against my construction of the statute.’

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2242 (QB), [2016] 2 WLR 437, [2015] WLR(D) 345, [2015] EMLR 28, [2016] 4 All ER 140, [2016] QB 402

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Defamation Act 2013 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 11-Mar-2015
Judgment as to meaning of certain of the phrases founding the defamation action.
Held: The articles were held to have meant (inter alia) that Mr Lachaux had been violent and abusive towards his wife during their marriage, had hidden Louis’ . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 1-Apr-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by the three defendant news organisations. The defendants now sought trial of certain preliminary issues, and particularly whether the claimant had suffered any serious harm to his reputation.
Held: The court . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Others QBD 29-Jun-2015
Orders allowing extension of time for service of the Particulars of Claim. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd/ Evening Standard Ltd QBD 18-Dec-2015
In each of these libel actions the Claimant applied for an order for the delivery up of documents which he claimed were the subject of legal professional privilege but which have been obtained by the Defendants from his former wife, Ms Lachaux, in . .
Cited – Economou v De Freitas QBD 27-Jul-2016
Failed action for defamation on rape allegations
The claimant had been accused by the defendant’s daughter of rape. He was never charged but sought to prosecute her alleging intent to pervert the course of justice. She later killed herself. The defendant sought to have the inquest extended to . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2) CA 12-Sep-2017
The court was asked whether the defendants and their solicitors may retain and make use of information contained in documents which are said by the claimant to be confidential and the subject of legal professional privilege . .
Cited – Theedom v Nourish Training (T/A Recruitment Colin Sewell) QBD 11-Dec-2015
The Court heard preliminary issues both as to the defamatory meaning of the words used and as to whether publication of those words had caused or was likely to cause serious harm pursuant to s.1 (1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: Following Cooke and . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others QBD 23-Nov-2015
Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.550922

Defendant’s application to set aside judgment in default – lack of service.

Judges:

Sharp J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2077 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others QBD 23-Nov-2015
Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.444307

The defendants sought a strike out of this libel action, begun in response to an words published in September 2004, saying that they were an abuse, and that the claimant’s delay demonstrated that his real and only interest was not in vindication.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2497 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others QBD 23-Nov-2015
Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.445058

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 997 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers QBD 19-Feb-2008
Complaint was made that an article was defamatory of the owner of Manchester United. The defendant now argued that the game was not worth the candle. The costs vastly exceeded any possible recovery, and it had openly offered vindication, and that . .
See Also – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 9-Jul-2007
The claimant sought to add the name of a further claimant. The defendant objected, saying that it was after the expiry of the limitation period.
Held: The claimant was seeking to use the rules for substitution of parties to add a party. In . .
See Also – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 19-Dec-2007
Applications were launched with in defamation proceedings to seek to recover damages for parties who had not previously been part of the proceedings.
Held: The amendments were refused. The new claimants were now out of time, and it was clear . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Contempt of Court

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.251795

Determination on written submissions of the issues of meaning and defamatory tendency.

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 358 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.658842

Each defendant sought summary rejection of defamation claims by the claimant as regards reports of breaches of harassment injunctions granted against her.
Held: ‘There is no doubt that the proceedings are an attempt by the Claimant to relitigate in this libel action the matters which she sought to rely upon in support of her unsuccessful application for permission to appeal against her conviction’. The first and second actions were struck out as wholly without merit.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 3400 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.517506

Appeal from strike out of claim as abuse of process.
Held: Denied.

Judges:

Peter Jackson, Dingemans LJJ, Sir Richard McCombe

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 18, [2021] WLR(D) 73, 2021] 4 WLR 27

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.657397

Assessment of meanings

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2947 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.643131

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2717 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.643107

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2605 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.643111

The claimants alleged defamation in a review of their scientific paper. The defendants said that the words were not defamatory.

Judges:

Sharp J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 737 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Defamation

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430859

Application for permission to appeal.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1464

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.217578