Category: Defamation

Mireskandari v Associated Newspapers Ltd: CA 23 Feb 2011

The claimant appealed against orders made in the course of his defamation claim.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, MR, Hooper, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 233

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Derby Magistrates Court Ex Parte B HL 19-Oct-1995
No Breach of Solicitor Client Confidence Allowed
B was charged with the murder of a young girl. He made a confession to the police, but later changed his story, saying his stepfather had killed the girl. He was acquitted. The stepfather was then charged with the murder. At his committal for trial, . .
Cited – General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v Tanter (‘The Zephyr’) 1984
When considering the extent to which a court should order partial disclosure of legally privileged advice, the test is one of fairness in the conduct of the trial. It should be left to the trial judge to determine whether a party in the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430463

HH Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Eastern Media Group and Another: CA 1 Feb 2011

Application for security for costs on appeal. The claimant’s defamation had been struck out as requiring the court to resolve a non-justiciable question as to religious policy.

Judges:

Sedley, Pitchford LLJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 139

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430358

Edwards v Golding and others: CA 3 Apr 2007

The claimant appealed against an order that his claim in defamation had failed for limitation, the judge having held that time ran from publication even though the claimant did not know the identity of the author.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The court had to take two separate decisions. First had the cause of action accrued. In this case it had, on publication. Secondly, the court must ask whether to exercise its discretion to extend that period because, for example, the identity of the author was unknown.

Judges:

Buxton, Wilson, Moses LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 416, Times 22-May-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 32(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cressey v E Timm and Son Ltd and E Timm and Son Holding Ltd CA 24-Jun-2005
The claimant sought to counter a defence that his claim was out of time, saying that he had been misinformed as to the name of his employer.
Held: A person could not sue simply ‘his employer’. He must find a name, particularly as against a . .
Cited – Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hanssen ChD 15-Jul-2003
The defendant sought a variation under Part 3.1(7) of an order setting aside an earlier judgment in default of defence, on terms requiring a substantial payment into court with which the defendant, who was a litigant in person, had not complied.
Cited – Collier v Williams and others CA 25-Jan-2006
Various parties appealed refusal and grant of extensions of time for service of claim forms.
Held: The court gave detailed guidance. The three central issues were the proper construction of the rule, the question of whether the court could . .
Appeal from – Edwards v Golding and others QBD 12-Jul-2006
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Kojima v HSBC Bank Plc ChD 22-Mar-2011
The defendant had been found to owe money to the bank. In order to avoid damaging his career he agreed to execute a charge to secure the judgment. He now sought release from that order, and to withdraw his admission of the debt. He had acted in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Limitation

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.251767

Edwards v Golding and others: QBD 12 Jul 2006

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1684 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Edwards v Golding and others CA 3-Apr-2007
The claimant appealed against an order that his claim in defamation had failed for limitation, the judge having held that time ran from publication even though the claimant did not know the identity of the author.
Held: The appeal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.244007

Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another v Steinberg: QBD 11 Feb 2011

The defendant sought to set aside summary judgment against him in a defamation action relating to a publication on the internet. The action had been heard over several years with the defendant being unrepresented, ill or abroad.
Held: The application failed. None of the issues raised by the defendant had been determinative of the judgment given in 2003, the claimants did not appear to have misled the judge, and the defendant had still produced no evidence to support any possible basis for running his defence.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 48 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hertfordshire Investments Ltd v Bubb and Another CA 25-Jul-2000
When considering an application for a re-hearing of a County Court action in order to consider and admit new evidence, the county court and High Court practice is now the same and the judge should consider the list of questions in Ladd v Marshall, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428709

Shergill v Purewal and Another: QBD 15 Dec 2010

The court was asked to rule that the action in defamation was non-justiciable depending for its outcome on matters of intepretation of the Sikh faith.
Held: the action was stayed.

Judges:

Sir Charles Gray

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3610 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Khaira and Others v Shergill and Others CA 17-Jul-2012
The parties disputed the trusteeship and governance of two Gurdwaras (Sikh temples). The defendants now applied for the claim to be struck out on the basis that the differences were as to Sikh doctrines and practice and as such were unjusticiable. . .
Appeal from – Shergill v Purewal and Another CA 22-Jun-2011
The claimant’s defamation action had been stayed as unjusticiable. The second defendant now appealed against an order for costs against it.
Held: The appeal against the costs order was allowed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428327

Clift v Slough Borough Council: CA 21 Dec 2010

The court was asked how, if at all, the Human Rights Act 1998 has affected a local authority’s defence of qualified privilege in defamation cases. The claimant had been placed on the Council’s Violent Persons Register after becoming very upset and angry with several council officials and expressing it. The Council had defended the consequent defamation action pleading qualified priviege and justification. The claimant had argued that the defence of qualified privilege could not now be used by a Council, since as a public authority it was bound to act in accordance with her human Rights. The Council now appealed against a ruling that ‘the Council does not have a qualified privilege defence (1) in relation to publication to their employees in Licensing, Food and Safety and Children and Education Services who, although they were ‘customer facing staff’, were not likely to be approached by the claimant and (2) also in relation to Community Wardens, Trade Union Officials and anyone in the four Partner Organisations.’
Held: Where the publisher is a public authority, in order to be protected by qualified privilege the publication must be consistent with its public law duties and in accordance with its obligations under the Human Rights Act.

Judges:

Ward, Thomas, Richards LJJ

Citations:

[2011] 3 All ER 118, [2011] EMLR 271, [2011] 1 WLR 1774, [2010] All ER (D) 243, [2010] EWCA Civ 1484, [2011] PTSR 990

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adam v Ward HL 1917
The plaintiff, Major Adam MP, falsely attacked General Scobell in a speech in the House of Commons, thus bringing his charge into the national arena. The Army Council investigated the charge, rejected it and directed their secretary, Sir E Ward, the . .
Cited – Kearns and Others v The General Council of the Bar CA 17-Mar-2003
The claimants had sought to recover from the General Council of the Bar damages for libel in a communication from the head of the Bar Council’s Professional Standards and Legal Services Department to all heads of chambers, their senior clerks and . .
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 – Regina (X) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 30-Jul-2004
The claimant had been accused of offences, but the prosecution had been discontinued when the child victims had failed to identify him. The police had nevertheless notified potential employers and he had been unable to obtain work as a social . .
Cited – Clift v Slough Borough Council and Another QBD 6-Jul-2009
The claimant sought damages for defamation. The council had decided that she had threatened a member of staff and notified various people, and entered her name on a violent persons register. She alleged malice, the council pleaded justification and . .
Cited – W v Westminster City Council and Others QBD 9-Dec-2004
The claimant sought to bring an action for defamation based upon communications made in a child protection conference. The reference was in a Report for Conference to be held pursuant to the duties imposed on local authorities by the Children Act . .
Cited – Wood v Chief Constable West Midlands Police CA 8-Dec-2004
The claimant was a director of a limited company. A Detective Chief Inspector with responsibility for crime prevention was investigating a series of car thefts and arrested the claimant’s business partner and, before the accused had even stood his . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lewis v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Others (Rev 1) QBD 31-Mar-2011
The defendant sought a ruling on the meaning of the words but using section 69(4) of the 1981 Act. The claimant solicitor was acting in complaints as to the unlawful interception of celebrity voicemails by agents of the press. There had been debate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Human Rights

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428237

Mark v Associated Newspapers Limited: CA 29 May 2002

The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendant had said she had authorised publication of extracts from her book about her time working as housekeeper for the prime minister’s family before she had obtained proper authority for publication.
Held: The court restated the application of the ‘bane and antidote principle’ of defamation law. A publication which advances and then purports to dispel a defamatory allegation can be acquitted of any possible defamatory meaning only in the very clearest of cases, because ‘mud sticks’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 772, [2002] EMLR 839, [2002] EMLR 38

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – George Galloway MP v The Telegraph Group Ltd CA 25-Jan-2006
The defendant appealed agaiunst a finding that it had defamed the claimant by repeating the contents of papers found after the invasion of Iraq which made claims against the claimant. The paper had not sought to justify the claims, relying on . .
Cited – Roberts and Another v Gable and others CA 12-Jul-2007
The claimants appealed a finding of qualified privilege in their claim of defamation by the defendant author and magazine which was said to have accused them of theft and threats of violence against other members of the BNP.
Held: The appeal . .
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: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.172188

France v Freemans Solicitors and Another: QBD 15 Dec 2010

Application by the Defendants in this libel action for summary judgment, based on the submission that the very limited publications which took place were protected by qualified privilege and that there was no realistic prospect of the Claimant being able to establish malice against the Second Defendant.
Held: Summary judgment in favour of the defendants.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3291 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation, Legal Professions

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427197

Terluk v Berezovsky: CA 25 Nov 2010

Sedley LJ considered the position faced by an appellate court on a complaint of unfairness by a lower court, saying: ‘We would add that the question whether a procedural decision was fair does not involve a premise that in any given forensic situation only one outcome is ever fair. Without reverting to the notion of a broad discretionary highway one can recognise that there may be more than one genuinely fair solution to a difficulty. As Lord Widgery CJ indicated in Bullen, it is where it can say with confidence that the course taken was not fair that an appellate or reviewing court should intervene. Put another way, the question is whether the decision was a fair one, not whether it was ‘the’ fair one.’

Judges:

Mummery, Sedley LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1345

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ogunbiyi, Regina (on The Application of) v Southend County Court and Another Admn 19-Mar-2015
Application for judicial review of a decision of a Circuit Judge at the County Court, (a) refusing permission to appeal again the judgment of a Deputy District Judge following a trial of the claim for damages again the claimant under a hire purchase . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426707

Boyo v Lloyds Bank Plc: QBD 23 Aug 2019

Proceedings against the Defendant for defamation (including malicious falsehood); breach of contract and breach of common law duty in respect of a report that the Defendant made to Credit References Agencies in relation to an overdraft on the Claimant’s student current account.

Judges:

Anthony Metzer QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2279 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.642120

Metropolitan International Schools Ltd (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corporation (T/A Digital Trends) and Others: QBD 1 Oct 2010

The court set at andpound;50,000 the damages after a finding of defamation of the claimant training company for materials published by the defendant thorugh their web-site. An internet search engine was not liable in defamation because the mental element traditionally involved in responsibility for publication at common law was absent.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2009] EMLR 27, [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others QBD 16-Jul-2009
The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a . .

Cited 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, Damages

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424889

Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd: QBD 9 May 2011

The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant newspaper after articles regarding his expenses claims whilst an MP.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1134 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, an MP, complained in defamation of the defendant’s description of his rejected expenses claim regarding an assistant’s charitable donation. The paper pleaded a Reynolds defence. The claimant said that when published the defendant knew . .

Cited by:

See Also – Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 16-Jun-2011
Trial of preliminary issues in defamation claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.439676

Clynes v O’ Connor: QBD 13 May 2011

The court considered an action for damages for slander consisting of a few words spoken in an angry outburst and ‘the court must try to achieve a proportionate outcome in litigation which, in itself, appears to be disproportionate and, arguably, to serve no useful purpose at all.’
Held: ‘It should have been disposed of by a prompt apology at the outset and the parties should quite simply have got on with their lives. Nevertheless, there has been an admission that slanders were uttered and that they were heard by a few bystanders. The solicitor’s letters were ignored and costs will inevitably have been incurred in the interim. In all the circumstances, it seems to me that a very modest sum of damages will serve the purpose.’ A later costs award should be similarly proportionate.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1201 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.439675

Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: QBD 7 Dec 2005

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2816 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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.’ . .
See also – 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 by:

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

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.236703

CVB v MGN Ltd: QBD 3 May 2012

The claimant had obtained an anonymity order ex parte on commencing the proceedings. The defendant now objected.
Held: The order that the Claimant be dispensed from giving her name and address on the claim form will be continued subject to conditions.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1148 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.454067

Naschie v Macmillan Publishers Ltd (T/A Nature Publishing Group) and Another: QBD 10 Jun 2011

The defendants sought directions to restrict the issues in the forthcoming defamation action.
Held: Orders were considered and made accordingly.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1468 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Expandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
Cited – Clarke (T/A Elumina Iberica Uk) v Bain and Another QBD 19-Nov-2008
The defendant asked the court to dismiss claims in defamation in an email saying that it lacked jurisdiction: ‘what is to be found on the internet may become like a tattoo’
Held: The court emphasised the need for careful control by the court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.440577

Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd: QBD 28 Jul 2010

The defendant having successfully had the claimant’s defamation action struck out summarily, sought costs on an indemnity basis, saying that his conduct of the matter had substantially and unnecessarily increased the costs.

Judges:

Sharp J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1939 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421375

Lonzim Plc and Others v Sprague: QBD 11 Nov 2009

The court asked whether any damages recovered by the claimant might be so small as to be totally disproportionate to the very high costs that any libel action involves.
Held: Tugendhat J said: ‘It is not enough for a claimant to say that a defendant to a slander action should raise his defence and the matter go to trial. The fact of being sued at all is a serious interference with freedom of expression.’ He continued to strike out the claim, holding that there was no evidence of any substantial tort committed within the jurisdiction, observing: ‘It is the duty of the court to bring to an end proceedings that are not serving the legitimate purpose of defamation proceedings, which is to protect the claimant’s reputation. I have no hesitation in categorising this part of the claim as an abuse of the process of the court. The claim is vexatious.’

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2838 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kaschke v Osler QBD 13-May-2010
The claimant sued in defamation as regards the defendant’s comments in his internet blog on her historical left wing political connections. She complained that they made a connection with terrorist activities. The defendant said that the article was . .
Cited – Brady v Norman QBD 26-May-2010
The claimant appealed against refusal of the Master to extend the 12 month limitation period in his proposed defamation claim. The allegations related to a dispute at an Aslef barbecue, and later of forgery. The claimant was a former General . .
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 – Williams v MGN Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2009
The claimant, who had been convicted of murder, complained that an article defamed him by calling him a ‘grass’ or police informer. The defendant asked that the claimant’s defamation action be struck out as an abuse.
Held: While the suggestion . .
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 . .
Cited – Brady v Norman CA 9-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to have disapplied the limitation period in his defamation claim. The claimant said that in the case of Cain, the Steedman case had not been cited, and that the decisions were incompatible, and that Cain was to be prefered.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.377863

Ronaldo v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 14 Oct 2009

The claimant issued defamation proceedings against two newspapers. The court considered the meanings complained of in each case, and whether the cases should be tried together. He was on leave for injury and was said to have been attempting to dance in a night club, and drinking to excess. Both defendants pleaded justification. The second defendant newspaper said that the meanings of its own article was different and that it would be prejudiced by a joint hearing. The witnesses were almost identical.
Held: there was a risk of prejudice to the second newspaper and the trials should be split.

Judges:

Sharp J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2862 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.380360

De Crespigny v Wellesley: 9 Feb 1829

In an action for a libel, it is no plea, that the defendant had the libellous statement from another, and upon publication disclosed the author’s name.

Judges:

Best CJ

Citations:

[1829] 5 Bing 392, [1829] EngR 350, (1829) 5 Bing 392, (1829) 130 ER 1112

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stern v Piper and Others CA 21-May-1996
The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt.
Held: A defamation was not to be . .
Cited – Watkin v Hall 1868
The plaintiff was chairman of a railway company. He claimed in defamation after the defendant said there was a rumour of his having failed, thus explaining the fall in the company’s share value.
Held: It was no defence to say that it was true . .
Cited – Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd HL 1964
Ascertaining Meaning of Words for Defamation
The Daily Telegraph had published an article headed ‘Inquiry on Firm by City Police’ and the Daily Mail had published an article headed ‘Fraud Squad Probe Firm’. The plaintiffs claimed that those articles carried the meaning that they were guilty of . .
Cited – Stern v Piper and Others CA 21-May-1996
The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt.
Held: A defamation was not to be . .
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: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.270506

Culnane v Morris and Another: QBD 8 Nov 2005

No specific privilege arises from the fact that a statement has been made in the context of an election campaign.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2438 (QB), [2006] 1 WLR 2880

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Quinton v Peirce and Another QBD 30-Apr-2009
One election candidate said that another had defamed him in an election leaflet. Additional claims were made in injurious falsehood and under the Data Protection Act.
Held: The claim in defamation failed. There were no special privileges in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Elections

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.235123

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’ when articulating his or her impression of the meaning conveyed by the words.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2187 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd CA 1968
Courts to Settle upon a single meaning if disputed
The ‘single meaning’ rule adopted in the law of defamation is in one sense highly artificial, given the range of meanings the impugned words sometimes bear. The law of defamation ‘has passed beyond redemption by the courts’. Where in a libel action . .
Cited – 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 by:

See Also – 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 – 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 – Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 20-Jun-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.231281

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.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2928 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See also – 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 . .
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. . .
See also – 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 – Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 20-Jun-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.236720

Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another: QBD 21 Jun 2011

The defendant had published an article based upon information said to be confidential and leaked from the claimant’s offices. A defamation claimant was suing the defendant in defamation, and the defendant wished to rely on the information in its defence. The present application obtained an interim injunction to restrain that and any other use, and for disclosure of the source of the leak. The defendant now sought further disclosure. The applicants replied that their own duties as police officers restricted that disclosure.
Held: In view of admissions now made by the defamation claimants no further disclosure was required of the present applicants. No order was made for disclosure of the source.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1566 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

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 – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Police, Human Rights

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.441147

Autofocus Ltd v Accident Exchange Ltd: CA 14 Jul 2010

The court considered the scope of witness immunity.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 788

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cutler v Dixon KBD 1585
‘It was adjudged, that if one exhibits articles to justices of peace against a certain person, containing divers great abuses and misdemeanors, not only concerning the petitioners themselves, but many others, and all this to the intent that he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420748

Taylor-Forrest v Owen and Another: CA 20 May 2010

The defendant sought to appeal against an order for his committal for contempt of court. He had been ordered to publish a retraction of his accusations, but had refused.
Held: The order stood: ‘all of us are required to obey orders of the court which forbid publication or require retraction of that which hitherto has been published. And it is no answer to persist in saying that ‘all I want to say is to tell the truth’. ‘

Judges:

Moore-Bick, Moses, Munby LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 769

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation, Contempt of Court

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420683

South Hetton Coal Company Ltd v North Eastern News Association Limited: CA 1894

The plaintiff company sued for defamation in respect of an article which alleged that it neglected its workforce. The defendants contended that no action for libel would lie on the part of a company unless actual pecuniary damage was proved.
Held: This submission was rejected. Kay LJ said: ‘a trading corporation may sue for a libel calculated to injure them in respect of their business, and may do so without any proof of damage general or special. Of course if there be no such evidence the damages given will probably be small.’ Words may be defamatory of a professional if they impute lack of qualification, knowledge, skill, capacity, judgment or efficiency in the conduct of his trade or business or professional activity.
Lopes LJ said that a company may maintain an action for a libel reflecting on the management of its business without alleging or proving special damage.
Lord Esher MR said that the law of defamation is the same for all plantiffs. While there were obvious differences between individuals and companies: ‘Then, if the case be one of libel – whether on a person, a firm, or a company – the law is that damages are at large. It is not necessary to prove any particular damage; the jury may give such damages as they think fit, having regard to the conduct of the parties respectively, and all the circumstances of the case.’

Judges:

Kay LJ, Lord Esher MR, Lopes LJ

Citations:

[1894] 1 QB 133

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Applied – Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others QBD 1991
The defendant published articles suggesting links between the Council and certain businessmen. The Council sued in defamation. The defendant argued that a local authority should not be able to sue for defamation.
Held: Applying South Hetton, . .
Cited – Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl HL 11-Oct-2006
The House was asked as to the capacity of a limited company to sue for damage to its reputation, where it had no trading activity within the jurisdiction, and as to the extent of the Reynolds defence. The defendants/appellants had published an . .
Approved – Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others CA 19-Apr-1992
In two issues of ‘The Sunday Times’ newspaper on 17 and 24 September 1989 there appeared articles concerning share deals involving the superannuation fund of the Derbyshire County Council. The articles in the issue of 17 September were headed . .
Cited – Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 18-Feb-1993
Local Council may not Sue in Defamation
Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which . .
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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.223374

Mulvaney and Others v The Sporting Exchange Ltd trading as Betfair: 18 Mar 2009

(High Court of Ireland) The defendant ran a betting website which included a forum. The claimant said that the forum had published postings defamatory of him.

Judges:

Clarke J

Citations:

[2009] IEHC 133

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bunt v Tilley and others QBD 10-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, European

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416816

HH Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Eastern Media Group and Another: QBD 17 May 2010

The claimant, a Sikh religious leader complained of defamation in a Sikh journal in England. The defendant said the claim was non-justiciable since it required the court to pronouce on a matter of religious doctrine.
Held: The plea of non-justiciability succeeded, and the claim was stayed. Eady J said: ‘the allegation of ‘impostor’ cannot be divorced from questions of Sikh doctrine and practice. Of course, I recognise that if an allegation were made of someone, who happened to be a religious leader, that he had his hand in the till, or assaulted a follower, this could be determined separately and without reference to religious doctrine or status, but that is far from this case. The issue whether this Claimant is or is not fairly described as an ‘impostor’ cannot be isolated and resolved without reference to Sikh doctrines and traditions.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1294 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sulaiman v Juffali FD 9-Nov-2001
A talaq pronounced in England as between parties who were Saudi nationals was not to be recognised in English law as a valid extra judicial overseas divorce, even though it otherwise complied with Sharia law. Section 44(1)(a) provides that no . .
Cited – Blake v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Jul-2003
The claimant, a former Anglican priest, sued in defamation. The defendant argued that the claim was non-justiciable since it would require the court to adjudicate on matters of faith and religious doctrine.
Held: The claim could not be heard. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Khaira and Others v Shergill and Others CA 17-Jul-2012
The parties disputed the trusteeship and governance of two Gurdwaras (Sikh temples). The defendants now applied for the claim to be struck out on the basis that the differences were as to Sikh doctrines and practice and as such were unjusticiable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Ecclesiastical

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416606

Lait MP v Evening Standard Ltd: QBD 25 Mar 2010

The claimant MP alleged defamation. The defendant applied to have certain alleged meanings in the article struck out. The article related to the alleged relation to repayment of expenses claims in her capacity as an MP.
Held: Though certain elements were overpleaded, there remained defamatory meanings.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 642 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Lait v Evening Standard Ltd QBD 9-Dec-2010
. .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.406531

Stretton v Stubbs Ltd: CA 28 Feb 1905

(1905) The plaintiff, an artist had a judgment against him by a picture frame maker. It had been entered by consent under an agreement with the plaintiff’s solicitor that no publicity should be given to the result of the action. Nevertheless, the defendants published the judgment in Stubbs’ Weekly Gazette and the plaintiff said that their canvaser had gone round to tradesmen pointing out the importance of subscribing to the Gazette, directing their attention to the plaintiff’s name and saying that he could not be worthy of credit. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff of andpound;25. As part of his case the plaintiff had relied upon the contract between himself and the solicitor for the plaintiff in the City of London Court action that the judgment should not be made public. This contract was contained in two without prejudice letters. The offer was contained in a letter from the plaintiff and the acceptance in a letter from the solicitor. The judge permitted the second letter to be put in evidence and read but refused to admit the first letter which had contained admissions by the plaintiff that he was absolutely insolvent.
Held: The first letter was to be read. Matthew LJ said that in his opinion ‘a letter written with regard to an action and marked ‘without prejudice’ was only privileged for the purpose of that particular action.’

Judges:

Sir Richard Henn Collins MR, Matthew LJ

Citations:

Times 28-Feb-1905

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council and Another HL 1988
Use of ‘Without Prejudice Save as to Costs”
A sub-contractor sought payment from the appellants under a construction contract for additional expenses incurred through disruption and delay. The appellants said they were liable to pay the costs, and were entitled to re-imbursement from the . .
Cited – Rush and Tomkins Ltd v Greater London Council HL 3-Nov-1988
The parties had entered into contracts for the construction of dwellings. The contractors sought payment. The council alleged shortcomings in the works. The principal parties had settled the dispute, but a sub-contractor now sought disclosure of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.253694

Merelie v Newcastle Primary Care Trust: QBD 21 Feb 2006

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 150 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Merelie v Newcastle Primary Care Trust QBD 11-Nov-2004
An harassment claim was being considered. It was suggested that a defendant sought revenge against the claimant. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Merelie v Newcastle Primary Care Trust QBD 20-Jun-2006
. .
See Also – Merelie v Newcastle Primary Health Care Trust and Others (No.3) Admn 20-Jun-2006
. .
See Also – Merelie v Newcastle Primary Care Trust CA 2-Mar-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Defamation

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.238930

McDonald’s Corporation, McDonald’s Restaurants Limited v Helen Marie Steel, David Morris: QBD 19 Jun 1997

(Summary of judgment)

Citations:

[1997] EWHC QB 366

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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 by:

See Also – 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. . .
Appeal from – McDonald’s Corporation, McDonald’s Restaurants Limited v Steel and Morris CA 5-Jan-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.136114

Auladin v Shaikh and Others: QBD 5 Feb 2013

The court set out to settle the precise defamatory meanings alleged. Trustees of an Education Centre had appointed a relative of three existing trustees to join them. The claimant chairman resigned, objecting to what he said was poor governence. The trustees issued the statement complained of in response.
Held: The claim was struck out. The words complained of could not be defamatory: ‘I cannot accept that any reasonable reader of the November statement, having received it as a member of the Palmers Green Mosque, would have thought the worse of Mr Auladin. I believe that the typical fair-minded reader would be likely to feel regret at his resignation. Such a person might agree or disagree with Mr Auladin’s view on the election of the additional Trustee but, either way, I do not see why his reputation, or the esteem in which he has hitherto been held, should have been diminished by the incident or by the statement itself.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 157 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd CA 1968
Courts to Settle upon a single meaning if disputed
The ‘single meaning’ rule adopted in the law of defamation is in one sense highly artificial, given the range of meanings the impugned words sometimes bear. The law of defamation ‘has passed beyond redemption by the courts’. Where in a libel action . .
Cited – Skuse v Granada Television CA 30-Mar-1993
The claimant complained that the defendant had said in a television programme that he had failed to act properly when presenting his expert forensic evidence in court in the trial of the Birmingham Six.
Held: The court should give to the . .
Cited – Gillick v 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 – Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd and Another CA 31-Jan-2008
Whether Statement defamatory at common law
The claimant appealed against a striking out of her claim for defamation on finding that the words did not have the defamatory meaning complained of, namely that she was transgendered or transsexual.
Held: The appeal failed.
Sir Anthony . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.470757

Fiddes v Channel 4 TV Corporation and Another: CA 24 Mar 2010

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 516

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Fiddes v Channel Four Television Corporation and Others CA 29-Jun-2010
The claimants in a defamation case made an interlocutory appeal against an order for trial by judge alone. The parties had agreed for trial by jury, but the defendants made a late application for trial by judge alone.
Held: The claimant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.414955

Kelly v Sherlock: 1866

The defendant had claimed that the plaintiff preached a sermon against the appointment of a Roman Catholic chaplain to the Liverpool borough gaol, and another sermon reflecting in strong terms on the conduct of the town council of Liverpool electing a Jew their mayor, and had caused extracts from both sermons to be published in the local newspapers. The defendant relied in part on the plaintiff’s own intemperate conduct toward the defendant.
Held: Blackburn J said ‘Now there can be no set-off of libel or misconduct against another, but in estimating the compensation for the plaintiffs injured feelings, the jury might fairly consider the plaintiff’s conduct and the degree of respect which the plaintiff himself had shown for the feelings of others; and finding on the evidence, that he published in the local press sermons reflecting on the local authorities that he published a statement (which I own I think borne out by the articles) that the defendant’s paper was so conducted as to justify the epithet of ‘the dregs of provincial journalism,’ and, above all, that he delivered from the pulpit, and published in the provincial papers, a statement to the effect that some of his opponents (no matter, in my opinion, whether including the defendant or not) had been guilty of subornation of perjury, and would, as he charitably hoped, repent on their deathbeds and confess their guilt, I cannot say that I think the jury were bound to give him substantial damages, though I heartily wish that their verdict had not been such as to give an appearance of triumph to the defendant’

Judges:

Blackburn J

Citations:

[1866] LR 1 QB 686

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Doubted – Judd v Sun Newspapers 1930
(Australia) The plaintiff was put in the box as a witness but not asked any questions by his counsel, nor did he give any evidence in chief; he was, however, cross-examined by counsel for the defendants, at great length, not only in regard to . .
Cited – Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited (2) QBD 23-Apr-1999
Evidence of Reputation Admissible but Limited
The plaintiff had brought an action for damages for defamation. The defendant wished to amend its defence to include allegations that the plaintiff had courted litigation by his action.
Held: A judge assessing damages should be able see the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.185260

Reachlocal UK Ltd and Another v Bennett and Others: QBD 3 Jul 2014

Application by the 1st and 3rd Defendants for relief from sanctions. The Claimants claim damages and an injunction for libel, slander, malicious falsehood, breach of confidence, breach of contract and conspiracy.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2161 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other, Defamation

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.533818

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 principle of the law of libel in this country that a claimant, whether individual or corporate, does not have to allege or prove special damage in order to establish a cause of action. Once the defamation is proved damage is presumed.’
In practice a ‘foreign corporation which trades outside this jurisdiction but does not trade within it will have greater difficulty in establishing that it has a trading reputation within this jurisdiction. If it succeeds, however, the interests of justice require that the same principles of law should apply to its claim for defamation. ‘ There was no requirement that a defamed corporation need show special damage, and the defendant’s rights of free speech were no impinged by this rule.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Sedley, Jonathan Parker LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 74, Times 14-Feb-2005, [2005] 2 WLR 1577, [2005] QB 904

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – A v B plc and Another (Flitcroft v MGN Ltd) CA 11-Mar-2002
A newspaper company appealed against an order preventing it naming a footballer who, they claimed, had been unfaithful to his wife.
Held: There remains a distinction between the right of privacy which attaches to sexual activities within and . .
Cited – English and Another v Hastie Publishing Ltd 31-Jan-2002
The court should be reluctant to attach qualified privilege to ‘reportage’ in circumstances where Parliament, in enacting section 15 and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Defamation Act 1996, had not chosen to do so. . .
Cited – South Hetton Coal Company Ltd v North Eastern News Association Limited CA 1894
The plaintiff company sued for defamation in respect of an article which alleged that it neglected its workforce. The defendants contended that no action for libel would lie on the part of a company unless actual pecuniary damage was proved.
Cited – Bennett v News Group Newspapers 2002
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 . .
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 – Al-Fagih v H H Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd CA 1-Nov-2001
The media’s right to freedom of expression, particularly in the field of political discussion ‘is of a higher order’ than ‘the right of an individual to his good reputation.’ The majority upheld an appeal against a trial judge’s ruling that the . .
Cited – Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd HL 1964
Ascertaining Meaning of Words for Defamation
The Daily Telegraph had published an article headed ‘Inquiry on Firm by City Police’ and the Daily Mail had published an article headed ‘Fraud Squad Probe Firm’. The plaintiffs claimed that those articles carried the meaning that they were guilty of . .
Cited – Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 18-Feb-1993
Local Council may not Sue in Defamation
Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which . .
Cited – S and M v United Kingdom ECHR 1993
The defendants to an action in defamation by McDonalds, who were acting in person, sought to make a complaint to the Strasbourg Court that the proceedings infringed their Article 10 rights of freedom of expression. One ground was that the law of the . .
Appeal from – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl QBD 2003
. .
See Also – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Ltd v Wall St Journal Europe SPRL QBD 7-Oct-2003
The court was asked to rule on two remaining pre-trial issues in this defamation claim. ‘namely, (1) an issue of meaning and (2) questions on the admissibility and relevance of eleven witness statements served on the Claimants’ behalf, and . .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Jameel and Another v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl QBD 5-Dec-2003
The defendant sought an order dismissing the defamation claim brought against it, saying that the rule that a defamation claim might be brought without proof of damage to reputation could not survive the introduction of the 1998 Act. . .

Cited by:

Cited – George Galloway MP v The Telegraph Group Ltd CA 25-Jan-2006
The defendant appealed agaiunst a finding that it had defamed the claimant by repeating the contents of papers found after the invasion of Iraq which made claims against the claimant. The paper had not sought to justify the claims, relying on . .
Cited – 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. . .
Appeal From – Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl HL 11-Oct-2006
The House was asked as to the capacity of a limited company to sue for damage to its reputation, where it had no trading activity within the jurisdiction, and as to the extent of the Reynolds defence. The defendants/appellants had published an . .
Cited – Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, an MP, complained in defamation of the defendant’s description of his rejected expenses claim regarding an assistant’s charitable donation. The paper pleaded a Reynolds defence. The claimant said that when published the defendant knew . .
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, . .
Cited – Kordowski v Hudson QBD 21-Oct-2011
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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Human Rights

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.222169

Ecclestone v Telegraph Media Group Ltd: QBD 6 Nov 2009

The defendant newspaper published a diary piece about the claimant, who alleged that it meant that she: ‘was disrespectful and dismissive of the McCartneys and Annie Lennox to the point of being willing to disparage them publicly for promoting vegetarianism’. The defendant asked the court to find the words were not defamatory at all.
Held: The action was struck out. The test is not whether a section of the public could think less of the claimant. The imputation was not serious enough to be capable of being defamatory.
Sharp J said: ‘In our society people hold different (and sometimes strong) views on any number of issues including the use of animal products. In a democratic society where freedom of expression is a protected right, people are entitled to hold strong views, and to express them within the limits laid down by the law
In my view the ordinary reasonable reader would see this sentence in the context in which it was used, as nothing more than the expression of a permissible view about an issue and matters on which some people hold strong opinions
I do not think it could seriously be suggested that it is defamatory of someone to say, without more, that they were dismissive or showed a lack of respect to those individuals, however well-respected they may be. As Mr Price said in argument, there is no obligation on a young person in today’s society to be respectful to people such as Sir Paul McCartney; nor are people likely to think the less of the Claimant merely because she expresses herself as not having much time for him because they hold different opinions on vegetarianism
a claim for defamation might arise where a claimant is alleged to have expressed views about people with whom he or she disagreed in such violent, excessive or abusive language that ordinary reasonable members of society might think the less of him or her for having done so. There may even be cases where a perceived lack of respect for a particular person in certain circumstances might be actionable in defamation. It seems to me however, that if the opinion expressed is an acceptable one there must be significant latitude given as to the manner in which it is expressed before right-thinking members of society would think the less of the person for expressing either their views, or their opinion of someone with whom they disagree . .’

Judges:

Sharp J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2779 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – Cammish v Hughes QBD 20-Apr-2012
The defendant disputed whether the words complained of were defamatory, and whether the action was an abuse as being ‘not worth the candle’. The parties were in opposition over a proposed development of a biomass plant.
Held: The court found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.377860

Fielding v Variety Incorporated: CA 1967

Judges:

Lord Denning M.R. and Harman and Salmon LJJ

Citations:

[1967] 2 QB 841

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Rookes v Barnard (No 1) HL 21-Jan-1964
The court set down the conditions for the award of exemplary damages. There are two categories. The first is where there has been oppressive or arbitrary conduct by a defendant. Cases in the second category are those in which the defendant’s conduct . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.223201

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 succeeded. Section 1 of the 2013 Act not only raises the threshold of seriousness from that in Jameel and Thornton, but requires its application to be determined by reference to the actual facts about its impact, not merely the meaning of the words.
Lord Sumption said that s 1 was to be interpreted in the light of the common law background, which he summarised as follows: ‘. . working definition of what makes a statement defamatory, derived from the speech of Lord Atkin in Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237, 1240, is that ‘the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.’ Like other formulations in the authorities, this turns on the supposed impact of the statement on those to whom it is communicated. But that impact falls to be ascertained in accordance with a number of more or less artificial rules. First, the meaning is not that which other people may actually have attached to it, but that which is derived from an objective assessment of the defamatory meaning that the notional ordinary reasonable reader would attach to it. Secondly, in an action for defamation actionable per se, damage to the claimant’s reputation is presumed rather than proved. It depends on the inherently injurious character (or ‘tendency’, in the time-honoured phrase) of a statement bearing that meaning. Thirdly, the presumption is one of law, and irrebuttable.
In two important cases decided in the decade before the Defamation Act 2013, the courts added a further requirement, namely that the damage to reputation in a case actionable per se must pass a minimum threshold of seriousness.’
Lord Sumption said that Parliament had clearly departed from the terms developed by the courts, and that must signify an intent to change the law and: ‘ . . a working definition of what makes a statement defamatory, derived from the speech of Lord Atkin in Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237, 1240, is that ‘the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.’ Like other formulations in the authorities, this turns on the supposed impact of the statement on those to whom it is communicated. But that impact falls to be ascertained in accordance with a number of more or less artificial rules. First, the meaning is not that which other people may actually have attached to it, but that which is derived from an objective assessment of the defamatory meaning that the notional ordinary reasonable reader would attach to it. Secondly, in an action for defamation actionable per se, damage to the claimant’s reputation is presumed rather than proved. It depends on the inherently injurious character (or ‘tendency’, in the time-honoured phrase) of a statement bearing that meaning. Thirdly, the presumption is one of law, and irrebuttable.
In two important cases decided in the decade before the Defamation Act 2013, the courts added a further requirement, namely that the damage to reputation in a case actionable per se must pass a minimum threshold of seriousness.’
and: ‘Finally, if serious harm can be demonstrated only by reference to the inherent tendency of the words, it is difficult to see that any substantial change to the law of defamation has been achieved by what was evidently intended as a significant amendment. The main reason why harm which was less than ‘serious’ had given rise to liability before the Act was that damage to reputation was presumed from the words alone and might therefore be very different from any damage which could be established in fact. If, as Ms Page submits, the presumption still works in that way, then this anomaly has been carried through into the Act. Suppose that the words amount to a grave allegation against the claimant, but they are published to a small number of people, or to people none of whom believe it, or possibly to people among whom the claimant had no reputation to be harmed. The law’s traditional answer is that these matters may mitigate damages but do not affect the defamatory character of the words. Yet it is plain that section 1 was intended to make them part of the test of the defamatory character of the statement.’

Judges:

Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 27, [2019] 3 WLR 18, UKSC 2017/0175, [2020] AC 612, [2019] EMLR 22, [2019] 4 All ER 485

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Judgment, SC Summary, SC Summary video, SC Video 131118 am, SC Vid 131118 pm, SC Vid 141118 am, WLRD

Statutes:

Defamation Act 2013 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’ . .
Ar first instance – 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. . .
See Also – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 30-Jul-2015
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
Cited – 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 – 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 – Ratcliffe v Evans CA 28-May-1892
The plaintiff was an engineer and boiler-maker. He alleged that a statement in the local newspaper that he had ceased business had caused him loss. The evidence that was given at trial consisted of general evidence of a downturn in trade; but the . .
Cited – Jones v Jones HL 1916
The House described the different origins of libel and slander. Libel was regarded by the Court of Star Chamber not merely as a crime punishable as such, but also as a wrong carrying the penalty of general damages, and this remedy was carried . .
Cited – Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Cited – Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof Aschaffenburg AG HL 5-Mar-1975
Statute’s Mischief May be Inspected
The House considered limitations upon them in reading statements made in the Houses of Parliament when construing a statute.
Held: It is rare that a statute can be properly interpreted without knowing the legislative object. The courts may . .
Cited – Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd HL 1964
Ascertaining Meaning of Words for Defamation
The Daily Telegraph had published an article headed ‘Inquiry on Firm by City Police’ and the Daily Mail had published an article headed ‘Fraud Squad Probe Firm’. The plaintiffs claimed that those articles carried the meaning that they were guilty of . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Dingle HL 1974
A defendant cannot rely in mitigation of damages on the fact that similar defamatory statements have been published about the same claimant by other persons. . .

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 . .
Cited – Simon and Others v Lyder and Another PC 29-Jul-2019
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board was asked as to the well-known conundrum in the common law of defamation, namely the extent to which (if at all) two or more different statements made upon different occasions by the same defendant may be aggregated . .
Cited – Wright v McCormack QBD 1-Aug-2022
Claimants falsehood reduced award to nominal only.
The parties disputed the original authorship of bitcoin, the claimant saying he was ‘Satoshi’ that originator. The defendant published a series of tweets denying that connection.
Held: One particular publication was to be read as part of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.638233

Vardy v Rooney: QBD 7 Jul 2021

Judges:

Mrs Justice Steyn

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 1888 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Vardy v Rooney QBD 20-Nov-2020
Trial of meaning as a preliminary issue in this claim for libel. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Vardy v Rooney and Another QBD 14-Feb-2022
Further pre-trial applications – joinder of further action – amendments – further information – disclosure – Instagram application . .
See Also – Vardy v Rooney QBD 29-Apr-2022
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.666048

Vardy v Rooney: QBD 20 Nov 2020

Trial of meaning as a preliminary issue in this claim for libel.

Judges:

Mr Justice Warby

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3156 (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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – Vardy v Rooney QBD 7-Jul-2021
. .
See Also – Vardy v Rooney and Another QBD 14-Feb-2022
Further pre-trial applications – joinder of further action – amendments – further information – disclosure – Instagram application . .
See Also – Vardy v Rooney QBD 29-Apr-2022
. .
See Also – Vardy v Rooney QBD 29-Jul-2022
The claimant alleged that the defendant had falsely accused her of passing details of the defendant’s private life to journalists. The defendant said that the allegation was true. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.656450

Edwards v Bell: 1824

The justification of the sting of a libel is sufficient even if it does not extend to every epithet or detail in the words complained of.
Held: ‘As much must be justified as meets the sting of the charge, and if anything be contained in the charge, which does not add to the sting of it, that need not be justified.’

Judges:

Burrough J

Citations:

(1824) 1 Bing 403

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Basham v Gregory and Little Brown and Co CA 2-Jul-1998
The defendant sought a retrial of his action for defamation.
Held: The judge’s directions on meaning as to the respective contentions was correct, and also the allocation of the burden of proof. Whilst the court had reservations about the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.185255

Munster v Lamb: CA 1883

Judges and witness, including police officers are given immunity from suit in defamation in court proceedings.
Fry LJ said: ‘Why should a witness be able to avail himself of his position in the box and to make without fear of civil consequences a false statement, which in many cases is perjured, and which is malicious and affects the character of another? The rule of law exists, not because the conduct of those persons ought not of itself to be actionable, but because if their conduct was actionable, actions would be brought against judges and witnesses in cases in which they had not spoken with malice, in which they had not spoken with falsehood. It is not a desire to prevent actions from being brought in cases where they ought to be maintained that has led to the adoption of the present rule of law; but it is the fear that if the rule were otherwise, numerous actions would be brought against persons who were merely discharging their duty. It must always be borne in mind that it is not intended to protect malicious and untruthful persons, but that it is intended to protect persons acting bona fide, who under a different rule would be liable, not perhaps to verdicts and judgments against them, but to the vexation of defending actions.’
Privilege applies even though what is said is gratuitous and irrelevant to what proves to be an issue in the issue in the trial.
Lord Brett MR said: ‘The rule of law is that what is said in the course of the administration of the law, is privileged; and the reason of that rule covers a counsel even more than a judge or a witness. To my mind it is illogical to argue that the protection of privilege ought not to exist for a counsel, who deliberately and maliciously slanders another person. The reason of the rule is, that a counsel, who is not malicious and who is acting bona fide, may not be in danger of having actions brought against him. If the rule of law were otherwise, the most innocent of counsel might be unrighteously harassed with suits, and therefore it is better to make the rule of law so large that an innocent counsel shall never be troubled, although by making it so large counsel are included who have been guilty of malice and misconduct.’
Brett MR continued, saying: ‘It was at one time suggested that although witnesses could not be held liable to actions upon the case for defamation, that is, for actions for libel and slander, nevertheless they might be held liable in another and different form of action on the case, namely, an action analogous to an action for malicious prosecution, in which it would be alleged that the statement complained of was false to the knowledge of the witness, and was made maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause. This view has been supported by high authority; but it seems to me wholly untenable. If an action for libel or slander cannot be maintained, how can such an action as I have mentioned be maintained, it being in truth an action for defamation in an altered form? Every objection and every reason, which can be urged against an action for libel or slander, will equally apply against the suggested form of action. Therefore, to my mind, the best way to deal with the suggested form of action is to dispose of it in the words of Crompton J in Henderson v Broomhead, where he said: ‘The attempts to obtain redress for defamation having failed, an effort was made in Revis v Smith to sustain an action analogous to an action for malicious prosecution. That seems to have been done in despair.’ Nothing could be more strong, nothing could shew more clearly his entire disbelief in the possibility of supporting that new form of action.’

Judges:

Fry LJ, Sir Balliol Brett MR

Citations:

(1883) 11 QBD 588

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Darker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police HL 1-Aug-2000
The plaintiffs had been indicted on counts alleging conspiracy to import drugs and conspiracy to forge traveller’s cheques. During the criminal trial it emerged that there had been such inadequate disclosure by the police that the proceedings were . .
Cited – 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 – Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 20-Jul-2004
The female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board’s treatment of her . .
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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Westcott v Westcott QBD 30-Oct-2007
The claimant said that his daughter in law had defamed him. She answered that the publication was protected by absolute privilege. She had complained to the police that he had hit her and her infant son.
Held: ‘the process of taking a witness . .
Cited – Westcott v Westcott CA 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 – Iqbal v Mansoor and Others QBD 26-Aug-2011
The claimant sought the disapplication of the limitation period in order to pursue the defendant solicitors, his former employers, in defamation. . .
Cited – 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 – 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.

Police, Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.184730

Broadway Approvals Ltd v Odhams Press Ltd (No 2): CA 1965

A company’s mind is not to be assessed on the totality of knowledge of its employees. Malice was not to be established by forensic imagination however eloquently and subtly expressed.
Russell LJ said: ‘the law of libel seems to have characteristics of such complication and subtlety that I wonder whether a jury on retiring can readily distinguish their heads from their heels.’

Judges:

Sellers, Davies and Russell L.JJ

Citations:

[1965] 1 WLR 805

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Rookes v Barnard (No 1) HL 21-Jan-1964
The court set down the conditions for the award of exemplary damages. There are two categories. The first is where there has been oppressive or arbitrary conduct by a defendant. Cases in the second category are those in which the defendant’s conduct . .

Cited by:

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 – Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .
Cited – Telnikoff v Matusevitch HL 14-Nov-1991
The court should decide on whether an article is ‘fact or comment’ purely by reference to the article itself, and not taking into account any of the earlier background coverage. It is the obligation of the relevant commentator to make clear that the . .
Cited – 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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages, Company

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.194318

Gorman v Mudd: CA 15 Oct 1992

The plaintiff, a Conservative MP, complained of a ‘mock press release’ written and circulated by the defendant, Mudd, a prominent member of the local community and chairman of the Billericay Conservative Businessman’s Association, to ninety-one people most of whom knew something of the underlying quarrel between the parties. The publication suggested that the plaintiff had sought to destroy the Assocation and to humiliate the defendant out of personal spite. The tone of the release was unpleasant (suggesting for example, that the plaintiff’s female charms were inadequate despite a hormone implant). Although a plea of qualified privilege was upheld, the jury found express malice. There was no apology. Rather Mrs Gorman had been subjected to unpleasant cross-examination which had increased her sense of humiliation.
Held: The jury’s award was reduced from andpound;150,000 to andpound;50,000.

Citations:

Unreported, 15 October 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .
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 July 2022; Ref: scu.184741

Rothermere v Times Newspapers Ltd: CA 1973

The court considered whether to order a defamation trial to be heard by judge alone, rather than before a jury.
Held: The criterion that the trial requires a prolonged examination of documents is basic and must be strictly satisfied, and it is not enough merely to show that the trial will be long and complicated.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Looking back on our history, I hold that, if a newspaper has criticised in its columns the great and the powerful on a matter of large public interest — and is then charged with libel — then its guilt or innocence should be tried with a jury, if the newspaper asks for it, even though it requires the prolonged examination of documents.’ and ‘the right given by our constitution to a Defendant who is charged with libel, either in criminal or civil proceedings. Every Defendant has a constitutional right to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury. This right is of the highest importance, especially when the Defendant has ventured to criticise the government of the day, or those who hold authority or power in the state’.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 448

Statutes:

Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Right Hon Aitken MP and Preston; Pallister and Guardian Newspapers Ltd CA 15-May-1997
The defendants appealed against an order that a defamation trial should proced before a judge alone.
Held: ‘Where the parties, or one of them, is a public figure, or there are matters of national interest in question, this would suggest the . .
Cited – Joyce v Sengupta and Another CA 31-Jul-1992
The defendant published an article accusing the plaintiff of theft. Not having funds to launch a claim in libel, the plaintiff obtained legal aid to claim in malicious falsehood. She now appealed against a strike out of that claim.
Held: A . .
Cited – Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, an MP, complained in defamation of the defendant’s description of his rejected expenses claim regarding an assistant’s charitable donation. The paper pleaded a Reynolds defence. The claimant said that when published the defendant knew . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.184760

Roache v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 23 Nov 1992

In his libel action the plaintiff was awarded andpound;50,000 damages. The same sum had been paid into court, but he obtained additionally an injunction against further publication of the libel and on that account was awarded his costs by the judge below. The court was asked what costs order should be made after acceptance of a payment into court.
Held: The judge must look closely at the facts of the particular case before him and ask: who, as a matter of substance and reality, has won? Has the plaintiff won anything of value which he could not have won without fighting the action through to a finish? Has the defendant substantially denied the plaintiff the prize which the plaintiff fought the action to win? The real question which the judge should have asked was: Why did the plaintiff go on to trial and not accept the money in court: Or, was it a significant factor in the plaintiff’s decision not to accept the payment in but instead to proceed to trial that he was concerned to obtain an injunction which he reasonably believed he could not otherwise have got? The power to make a payment into court is a most useful weapon in the hands of a defendant faced with a greedy plaintiff making unreasonable demands for damages, but it will be completely blunted if, having failed to beat the payment into court, the plaintiff can say, ‘Oh well, I’m entitled to an injunction, the defendant didn’t offer me that and I have had to come to court to get it so I’m entitled to my costs.’ Where there is a substantial payment into court which the plaintiff fails to beat, it cannot be right that, because the defendant omits to make a ritualistic offer of an undertaking not to repeat the libel, he has to pay all the costs after payment in.

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

Independent 31-Dec-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sugar v Venables and Michael Joseph Limited (2) CA 17-Oct-1997
The appellant challenged an order for costs against him. He had begun defamation proceedings which were settled upon the terms of an offer without prejudice as to costs. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s substantial costs incurred . .
Cited – Butcher v Wolfe and Another CA 30-Oct-1998
The parties had been partners in a family farm. On dissolution there was a dispute as to apportionment of costs. An offer had been ‘without prejudice save as to costs’.
Held: Costs may be denied to a plaintiff who had received a Calderbank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.180506

AB v CD: SCS 1 Nov 1904

Lord Young said: ‘everyone giving evidence in a Court of justice, being admissible as a witness, and answering the questions which are properly put to him, which those allowed by the Court are presumed to be, is privileged, and that it is in the interests of justice, and the public for whom justice is administered, that he should not give his answers under any apprehension of being liable to an action of damages should his evidence be defamatory of anyone, whether a party to the action or not. The ground upon which that rule of law is founded your Lordship has explained, and it is indeed obvious. It is in the interests of the public that the truth should be ascertained in a Court of justice, and that witnesses should give their evidence without any such apprehension or fear.’

Judges:

Lord Young

Citations:

[1904] ScotCS CSIH – 6, (1904) 7 F 22, (1904) 12 SLT 395

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Watson v M’Ewan HL 1905
A claim was brought against a medical witness in respect of statements made in preparation of a witness statement and similar statements subsequently made in court. The appellant was a doctor of medicine who had been retained by the respondent in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.279264

Adams, MP v Guardian Newspapers Limited: SCS 7 May 2003

Whether statements attributed were defamatory – accusation of leaking email, but email said not to be confidential

Judges:

Lord Reed

Citations:

[2003] ScotCS 131, 2003 SCLR 593, 2003 GWD 16-514, 2003 SLT 1058, : 2003 SCLR 593

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Cherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General SCS 11-Sep-2019
(First Division, Inner House) The reclaimer challenged dismissal of her claim for review of the recent decision for the prorogation of the Parliament at Westminster.
Held: Reclaim was granted. The absence of reasons allowed the court to infer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.183933

Lakah Group and Another v Al Jazeera Satellite Channel and Another: CA 9 Dec 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1781

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Lakah Group and Another v al-Jazeera Satellite Channel and Another QBD 26-Mar-2003
The defendant sought an order that the defamation proceedings had been invalidly served.
Held: The Rule introduced an additional code and alternative method of service, but not a comprehensive code. Establishing a place of business under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.188733

Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd: QBD 19 Oct 2009

The claimant complained that an article describing him as the world’s worst professional tennis player was defamatory. The defendant denied that it was defamatory. The court held a preliminary hearing to try to narrow the issues, the claimant estimating his costs at pounds 500,000 so far.
Held: The truth of the assertion depended on the definitions selected. The claimant should answer the questions posed as to whether the matches he had won were or were not matches which counted toward rankings.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2546 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.376176

Grovit v De Nederlandsche Bank Nv and Others: CA 24 Jul 2007

The claimants sought damages in defamation in respect of a letter faxed by the first defendant to the other defendants in London. The first defendant said that it had state immunity, and the other claimed similar benefits acting as the bank’s employees. The claimant now appealed against his action being struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The Bank and its employees, the second and third defendants, were exercising public law powers. They were performing the role of an administrative authority carrying out governmental supervisory functions which had been delegated to the Bank by the Dutch Government to protect the integrity of the financial system in the Netherlands. The fact that incidentally the letter contained libellous material did not deprive it of its essentially public law character.

Judges:

May LJ, Dyson LJ, Jacob LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 953, [2008] 1 WLR 51, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 106, [2008] ILPr 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

State Immunity Act 1978 14(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sonntag v Waidmann, Waidmann and Waidmann ECJ 21-Apr-1993
Europa 1. A claim for compensation for loss to an individual resulting from a criminal offence, even though made in the context of criminal proceedings, is civil in nature unless the person against whom it is . .
Cited – Lechouritou and Others v Federal Republic of Germany (Judgments Convention / Enforcement Of Judgments) ECJ 15-Feb-2007
Europa Brussels Convention ‘ First sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1’ Scope ‘Civil and commercial matters’ Meaning ‘Action for compensation brought in a Contracting State, by the successors of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341666

Taliadorou And Stylianou v Cyprus: ECHR 16 Oct 2008

One of the functions of article 6(2) is to protect an acquitted person’s reputation from statements or acts that follow an acquittal which would seem to undermine it.

Citations:

39627/05, [2008] ECHR 1088, 39631/05

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Adams, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 11-May-2011
The three claimants had each been convicted of murders and served time. Their convictions had been reversed eventually, and they now appealed against the refusal of compensation for imprisonment, saying that there had been a miscarriage of justice. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Defamation

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.276969

Bull v Desporte (1952): QBD 26 Jun 2019

Judges:

Justice Julian Knowles

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1952 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Bull v Desporte (1650) QBD 26-Jun-2019
Claim for misuse of private information and copyright infringement. . .
See Also – Bull v Desporte (1669) QBD 26-Jun-2019
Claim for misuse of private information and copyright infringement. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Defamation

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.639716

Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: QBD 5 Mar 2009

The claimant police officer complained of an alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant. The defendant wished to obtain information from the IPCC to show that they were investigating the matter as a credible issue. The court considered applications relating to the disclosure of private materials given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Metropolitan Police about a third party with reason to fear for his safety.
Held: The court identified issues which might define the need for disclosure to support a defence of justification, and heard representations on the documents sought. The defendant had not yet met the strict criteria requiring such disclosures in any of the categories sought. In relation to Part 31.17 applications, Eady J said: ‘In any event the court has a clear obligation to ensure, if necessary of its own motion, that this intrusive jurisdiction is not used inappropriately -even by consent. In exercising its responsibility the court may well be assisted by submissions made on behalf of any third party, the protection of whose interests require to be considered.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2009] EMLR 18, [2009] EWHC 411 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 34, Civil Procedure Rules 31.17

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 – Frankson and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Johns v Same CA 8-May-2003
The claimants sought damages for injuries alleged to have been received at the hands of prison officers whilst in prison. They now sought disclosure by the police of statements made to the police during the course of their investigation.
Held: . .
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 – Three Rivers District Council and Others, HM Treasury, v HM Treasury, The Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 4) CA 7-Aug-2002
The claimants had suffered having lost deposits with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. They claimed their losses from the respondents as regulators of the bank, for negligence and misfeasance in public office. The action was based upon . .
Cited – Wakefield v Outhwaite 1990
When seeking an order for a third party to disclose documents, the threshold condition cannot be circumvented by an order which puts upon the non-party the task of identifying those documents within a composite class which do, and those which do . .
Cited – American Home Products Corporation, Professor Roy Calne v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited, Novartis Pharma AG CA 27-Jul-2000
The invention was a second medical use for a known drug rapamycin, which was found to have an immuno-suppressive effect. The court asked whether a claim to rapamycin should be construed to include derivatives.
Held: A person skilled in the art . .
Cited – In Re Howglen Ltd ChD 21-Apr-2000
Where a party applies for an order obliging a third party to discover all documents within a certain class of documents, the court must be satisfied that every document which might fall within the class also fell properly within the class of . .
Cited – Woolgar v Chief Constable of Sussex Police and UKCC CA 26-May-1999
The issue was the potential disclosure by the police to the nurses’ regulatory body of confidential information concerning the plaintiff, the matron of a nursing home. There had been insufficient evidence to charge the plaintiff with a criminal . .
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 . .
Cited – Panayiotou and Others v Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd ChD 21-Jul-1993
The rules do not limit the inherent jurisdiction of the court to make requests to foreign courts to ensure the production of documents from abroad. There is no logical reason why the principles by reference to which the court determines whether, and . .
Cited – Marcel v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1992
A writ of subpoena ad duces tecum had been issued requiring the production by the police for use in civil proceedings of documents seized during a criminal fraud investigation. The victim of the fraud needed them to pursue his own civil case.

Cited by:

See Also – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 2-Oct-2009
The defendant had published a story in its newspaper. At that time it attracted Reynolds qualified privilege. After the circumstances changed, the paper offered an updating item. That offer was rejected as inadequate.
Held: The qualified . .
See Also – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Jul-2010
The claimant police officer complained of an article he said was defamatory in saying he was being investigated for allegations of accepting bribes. The article remained on the internet even after he was cleared. Each party appealed interim orders. . .
Cited – Andrew v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis ChD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought unredacted disclosure of documents by the second defendant so that he could pursue an action against the first, who, he said, were thought to have intercepted his mobile phone messages, and where the second defendant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.320871

Haji-Ioannou v Dixon, Regus Group Plc and Another: QBD 6 Feb 2009

The defendants sought to strike out the defamation claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process. It was brought by the founder of Easyjet against senior officers of a company in a new venture. The claimant had alleged misuse of confidential information provided to them at a meeting. Allegations were made first by the defendants of defamation in correspondence between solicitors. They defendants said that the claimant had himself drawn attention of others to the correspondence said to be defamatory and was the architect of his own misfortune, and that the action was disproportionate.
Held: A strike out in such a case must be an exceptional measure. There was a possibility of a substantial award of damages, and the circumstances of publication and offers of amends were not undisputed. A short stay should be imposed as an alternative to allow negotiations to come to fruition.
Sharp J said: ‘Publication of a libel or indeed a slander, to one person may be trivial in one context, but more serious than publication to many more in another. Much depends on the nature of the allegation, and the identity of the person about whom and the person or persons to whom it is made. To that extent, the decision in each case is ‘fact sensitive’ . . ‘.
It is one thing to be slandered (even seriously) in front of an unknown passer-by (e.g. in front of C, A says to B, ‘you stole that item from the shop’), it is quite another for a person to be slandered to his/her employer. In the first example, if the passer-by does not know the claimant, even though, in the circumstances, s/he has been sufficiently identified, then the harm caused to reputation will be limited because of the anonymity. Importantly, it would usually be impossible for there to be any grapevine effect, because the publishee cannot pass on the information in a way that has any damaging effect on the claimant.

Judges:

Sharp J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 178 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Cited – Mardas v New York Times Company and Another QBD 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.295123

Heath v Humphreys: 21 May 1990

The court considered the circumstances under which malice could be established so as to defeat a claim of qualified privilege. Malice is not to be inferred from the hypothetical untruth of a proposition derived from a misconstruction of a publication. Speaking of Horrocks -v- Lowe: ‘I think that this passage requires some qualification by the addition of a further exceptional case. Since, as Lord Diplock emphasised, the public interest essentially requires protection for freedom of communication honestly exercised, what matters is that the publishers shall believe in the truth of what he intends to say. If, from his viewpoint his remarks are misconstrued, he would be likely to be the first to say ‘I never believed in the truth of that’ or ‘I never considered whether or not that was true’. If such an answer would take him outside the protection of qualified privilege, its purpose would on occasion be wholly undermined. Putting it another way, in such circumstances the defamer cannot be said to be ‘telling deliberate and injurious falsehoods’. At worse, he is doing so unintentionally.’

Judges:

Lord Donaldson MR

Citations:

Unreported, May 21 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Horrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 – Loveless v Earl; Capital and Counties (Financial Services) Limited CA 4-Nov-1998
When a defendant claimed qualified privilege and the Plaintiff alleged that the words complained of were issued with malice, the defendant will not prevented from reliance on qualified privilege if it can show that the words have an honestly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.194319

Alexander v Arts Council of Wales: QBD 20 Jul 2000

A representative of the Arts Council of Wales was held to have been protected by qualified privilege in making statements at a press conference held to explain the Council’s refusal of a particular application for arts funding, and after the Council’s decision had been attacked in the press by the applicant. The meaning of the statement was essentially that the Claimant had a cavalier attitude to the use of public funds and was a reckless, negligent or incompetent administrator: this was why the Council had refused the application.
Eady J said: ‘It seems to me that the matter can be put on both bases, that is to say the general duty/interest test and the ‘reply to an attack’ test. I prefer to place the matter on the more general footing by saying that this was a matter concerning public funding and decisions made in relation to it which were likely to have a considerable impact on the arts in South Wales. It seems to me to be clear that someone in [the second defendant’s] position had a duty to explain, as far as she could, the nature of the decision and, if pressed upon it, the reasons for the decision. That is particularly so in a case where the matter had been placed in the public domain very recently and had thereby become a matter of legitimate interest.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

Unreported, 20 July 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Approved – Bento v The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police QBD 1-Jun-2012
The claimant had been convicted of the murder of his girlfriend. On his acquittal on appeal, the police criticised the CPS decision not to retry the claimant, in effect, the claimant now said, continuing the accusation against him, and so defaming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.460273

Maccaba v Lichtenstein: QBD 15 Apr 2003

Claims in slander, harassment and breach of confidence.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1325 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Maccaba v Lichtenstein (expectation of Privacy) QBD 2-Jul-2004
Gray J considered whether an expectation of privacy arose in a letter sent to another person: ‘as a general rule correspondence between A and B on private matters such as their feelings for one another would be a prime candidate for protection.’ . .

Cited by:

See Also – Maccaba v Lichtenstein (No Special Damage) QBD 2-Jul-2004
Ruling on the application by the Defendant that judgment be entered in his favour in relation to the claim against him in slander. The basis of the application is in short that no special damage is alleged to have been suffered by the Claimant and . .
See Also – Maccaba v Lichtenstein (Privilege) QBD 2-Jul-2004
Ruling on the question whether the slanders of which the Claimant complains in this action were uttered by the Defendant on occasions protected by qualified privilege. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.271066

Maccaba v Lichtenstein (No Special Damage): QBD 2 Jul 2004

Ruling on the application by the Defendant that judgment be entered in his favour in relation to the claim against him in slander. The basis of the application is in short that no special damage is alleged to have been suffered by the Claimant and that this is not one of the category of cases in which the need to prove special damage in a slander action is dispensed with by the provisions of section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1580 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Maccaba v Lichtenstein (Privilege) QBD 2-Jul-2004
Ruling on the question whether the slanders of which the Claimant complains in this action were uttered by the Defendant on occasions protected by qualified privilege. . .
See Also – Maccaba v Lichtenstein (expectation of Privacy) QBD 2-Jul-2004
Gray J considered whether an expectation of privacy arose in a letter sent to another person: ‘as a general rule correspondence between A and B on private matters such as their feelings for one another would be a prime candidate for protection.’ . .
See Also – Maccaba v Lichtenstein QBD 15-Apr-2003
Claims in slander, harassment and breach of confidence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.269951