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

The court is entitled to take account of the nature of the hypothetical reasonable reader, in this case the ‘educated readership’ of the Guardian Weekend section, when deciding the impied meanings in a statement said to be defamatory. Tugendhat J warned of the Scylla and Charybdis between which the judge must steer a course: setting too low a meaning may deprive the claimant of his right to vindication before a court, and setting it too high may wrongly burden the defendant with libel proceedings which cannot be defended.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3066 (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 – Hamaizia and Another v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 21-Oct-2014
The two claimants, each convicted of serious offences of false imprisonment and violent assault, complained of a press release issued by the defendant which, they said accused them of involvement in a murder.
Held: The words complained of did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278795

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4493 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.541562

Citations:

[1732] EngR 107, (1732) Fitzg 121, (1732) 94 ER 681 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.387222

Citations:

[2001] EBLR 40, [2001] EWCA Civ 348

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.200936

Trial of three preliminary issues in this libel action brought by the Claimant barrister against the Defendant publisher of The Times newspaper and its associated website in respect of an article published on 15 August 2018. The issues are (i) the true meaning of the article; (ii) whether the article in its true meaning is defamatory of the Claimant at common law; and (iii) whether the article in its true meaning has a tendency to cause serious harm to the reputation of the Claimant.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1525 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.639729

The claimant alleged defamation in an article on the defendant’s web-site discussing a failure of his earlier defamation action. He now sought directions for a jury trial.

Judges:

Nicola Davies DBE J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2202 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case.
Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not . .
Cited – 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 – 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 . .
See Also – McGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others QBD 30-Mar-2012
The claimant sued in defamation over postings in a review of a book on the Amazon web-site and otherwise. The court now heard interim applications.
Held: Various elements of the claim were struck out as being without value or prospect of . .
See Also – McGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others CA 5-Feb-2013
The claimant appealed against a finding that the defendant Amazon was bound to succeed in its defence under the 2002 Regulations against the claim in defamation, and that the claim should be dismissed as an abuse of process under Jameel. He had . .
Cited – Richards v Naum CA 1967
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against an order for the trial of a preliminary issue, since in its view the issue of privilege the subject of the order might require for its determination an investigation of fact in greater detail than the . .
Cited – Tinkler and Another v Elliott CA 10-Oct-2012
The claimant was a litigant in person who said that he had misunderstood the relevant provision of the CPR.
Maurice Kay LJ said: ‘I accept that there may be facts and circumstances in relation to a litigant in person which may go to an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.513776

Judges:

Lord Justice Munby

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1709

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.467236

The parties had settled a defamation action by means of an offer of amends. The defendant changed his mind about the offer, and the court now considered whether the accepted offer of amends was binding as a contract.
Held: It was a contract, and there were no grounds shown sufficient to set it aside.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3062 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Warren v The Random House Group Ltd (No. 1) QBD 5-Dec-2007
The defendant applied to amend its defence to the defamation claim. The effect of the proposed amendment had been to withdraw the defence based on its offer of amends and to substitute for it a plea of justification in respect of one of three . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Warren v The Random House Group Ltd CA 16-Jul-2008
An offer of amends by the defendant had been accepted by the claimant. The defendant then sought to set aside the agreement and to resist the claim on its merits in reliance on a defence of justification. The parties disputed whether such an offer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271256

An offer of amends by the defendant had been accepted by the claimant. The defendant then sought to set aside the agreement and to resist the claim on its merits in reliance on a defence of justification. The parties disputed whether such an offer and its acceptance has the status of a binding and legally enforceable contract. At first instance it was held that it did, and that no grounds had been shown for setting it aside.
Held: The Court doubted that such an agreement amounts to a binding and legally enforceable contract but endorsed the claimant’s concession that ‘whether or not a contract properly so called comes into operation, the court would permit either party to resile from it on one of the traditional contractual grounds’
The court then considered whether the court might permit a party to resile from an agreement which could not be challenged on such traditional grounds and, if so, under what circumstances, finding that the court could allow this, but that it would rarely be appropriate to exercise that discretion so as to relieve a party of the consequences of a bargain freely entered into. The Court should ask itself: ‘whether there are here on the facts special circumstances which lead to the conclusion that the defendant should be permitted to resile from the statutory scheme which flows from the claimant’s acceptance of its offer of amends.’ The conditions of the use of that discretion are akin to those which apply when a party seeks to be released from an undertaking voluntarily given in the course of litigation, including the context, and whether the offer was made independently of the agreement of the claimant, or as part of a collateral bargain.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 834, [2009] QB 600

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Warren v The Random House Group Ltd (No. 1) QBD 5-Dec-2007
The defendant applied to amend its defence to the defamation claim. The effect of the proposed amendment had been to withdraw the defence based on its offer of amends and to substitute for it a plea of justification in respect of one of three . .
Cited – Di Placito v Slater and others CA 19-Dec-2003
The parties had earlier compromised their dispute, with the claimant undertaking not to lodge any further claim unless he did so within a certain time. They now sought to commence action.
Held: When considering whether to discharge such an . .
Appeal from – Warren v The Random House Group Ltd QBD 20-Dec-2007
The parties had settled a defamation action by means of an offer of amends. The defendant changed his mind about the offer, and the court now considered whether the accepted offer of amends was binding as a contract.
Held: It was a contract, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Barron and Others v Collins MEP QBD 22-Dec-2016
The defendant MEP had had adjourned the claim against her for defamation, claiming that her actions has been as an MEP and therefore exempt from proceedings. The chair of the European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee had received and rejected her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270838

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 basis that such a complaint was protected by absolute privilege.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. Ward LJ said:’ the justification for absolute immunity from suit will depend upon the necessity for the due administration of criminal justice that complaints of alleged criminal conduct should always be capable of being made to the police free from fear that the person accused will subsequently involve the complainant in costly litigation. There is a countervailing public interest in play which is that no-one should have his or her reputation traduced, certainly not without affording him or her a remedy to redress the wrong. A balance has to be struck between these competing demands. .’ Though sometimes the system would be subject to abuse, it was necessary that those making complaints must be sure of immunity: ‘any inhibition on the freedom to complain will seriously erode the rigours of the criminal justice system and will be contrary to the public interest. In my judgment immunity must be given from the earliest moment that the criminal justice system becomes involved. It follows that the occasion of the making of both the oral complaint and the subsequent written complaint must be absolutely privileged.’

Judges:

Ward LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 818, Times 27-Aug-2008, [2009] QB 407, [2009] 2 WLR 838, [2009] 1 All ER 727, [2009] EMLR 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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 – Evans v London Hospital Medical College and Others 1981
The defendants employed by the first defendant carried out a post mortem on the plaintiff’s infant son. They found concentrations of morphine and told the police. The plaintiff was charged with the murder of her son. After further investigation no . .
Cited – Alexandrovic v Khan QBD 2008
The public policy priority is that those who have complaints should be free to make them to the police without fear that they will be challenged in later proceedings even if those who are malicious obtain the benefit of such protection, since the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Shufflebottom v Allday 1857
The defendant had been robbed. He described the robber to a constable who arrested the plaintiff. Seeing him in custody, the defendant said: ‘That is the man’. After having been remanded in custody for two days, the plaintiff was then acquitted . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Lincoln v Daniels CA 1961
The defendant claimed absolute immunity in respect of communications sent by him to the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by the plaintiff, a Queen’s Counsel.
Held: Initial communications sent to the secretary of the Bar Council . .
Cited – Hasselblad (GB) Ltd v Orbison CA 1985
In the course of proceedings brought by the European Commission against Hasselblad, Mr Orbison wrote a letter to the Commission upon which the appellant then sued for damages for libel. The court considered the dangers of national and European . .
Cited – Marrinan v Vibert CA 2-Jan-1963
A tortious conspiracy was alleged in the conduct of a civil action. The plaintiff appealed against rejection of his claim.
Held: The appeal failed as an attempt to circumvent the immunity of a wirness in defamation by framing a claim in . .
Cited – Daniels v Griffiths CA 27-Nov-1997
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim in defamation against the defendant. He was a prisoner convicted of rape and subject to life imprisonment. He sought parole, and said that the defendant had slandered him before the Parole Board. . .
Cited – Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2) CA 8-Jun-2000
The defendant’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings . .
Cited – 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 – Buckley v Dalziel QBD 3-May-2007
There was a heated dispute between neighbours, culminating in some generous or perhaps over-generous pruning by the claimant of the defendant’s trees and shrubs on the boundaries. The defendants reported the matter to the police. Both Mr and Mrs . .
Leading Case – Martin v Watson HL 13-Jul-1995
The plaintiff had been falsely reported to the police by the defendant, a neighbour, for indecent exposure whilst standing on a ladder in his garden. He had been arrested and charged, but at a hearing before the Magistrates’ Court, the Crown . .
Cited – D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children HL 2-Feb-1977
Immunity from disclosure of their identity should be given to those who gave information about neglect or ill treatment of children to a local authority or the NSPCC similar to that which the law allowed to police informers.
Lord Simon of . .
Cited – A v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-2002
The applicant complained that the absence of legal aid to allow a challenge what had been said about her in Parliament by way of defamation, violated her right of access to court.
Held: The right to absolute parliamentary privilege was within . .

Cited by:

Cited – White v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD 1-Apr-2011
The claimant doctor sued in defamation for letters written by the defendants to the Fitness to Practice Directorate. She now sought to appeal against a finding that she could not rely upon one letter which had come to her attention through . .
Cited – Crawford v Jenkins CA 24-Jul-2014
The parties had divorced but acrimony continued. H now complained of his arrests after allegations from his former wife that he had breached two orders. He had been released and no charges followed. The court had ruled that W’s complaints were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270814

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1224 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.242708

The claimant alleged defamation in the words ‘The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.’ The defendant said that his words were comment and that the defence of fair comment was available to him.
Held: The words complained of accused the claimant of promoting treatments which it knew to be bogus. That accusation was an assertion of fact, not comment.
Eady J said: ‘What the article conveys is that the BCA itself makes claims to the public as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment for certain ailments even though there is not a jot of evidence to support those claims. That in itself would be an irresponsible way to behave and it is an allegation that is plainly defamatory of anyone identifiable as the culprit. In this case these claims are expressly attributed to the claimant. It goes further. It is said that despite its outward appearance of respectability, it is happy to promote bogus treatments. Everyone knows what bogus treatments are. They are not merely treatments which have proved less effective than they were at first thought to be, or which have been shown by the subsequent acquisition of more detailed scientific knowledge to be ineffective. Bogus treatments equate to quack remedies; that is to say they are dishonestly presented to a trusting and, in some respects perhaps, vulnerable public as having proven efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions or illnesses, when it is known that there is nothing to support such claims.
It is alleged that the claimant promotes the bogus treatments ‘happily’. What that means is not that they do it naively or innocently believing in their efficacy, but rather that they are quite content and, so to speak, with their eyes open to present what are known to be bogus treatments as useful and effective. That is in my judgment the plainest allegation of dishonesty and indeed it accuses them of thoroughly disreputable conduct.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1101 QB, [2009] EWHC 1101 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – British Chiropractic Association v Dr Simon Singh CA 1-Apr-2010
The defendant appealed against a ruling that the words in an article – ‘This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments’ – were statements of fact, and were not comment.
Appeal from – British Chiropractic Association v Singh CA 14-Oct-2009
The court heard a renewed application for leave to appeal against preliminary ruling in a cse of defamation brought by the Association against an author.
Held: Granted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.406672

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1195 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Principal Judgement – Underhill v Corser and Another QBD 16-Jun-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.416139

application to set aside judgment

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1733 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.347761

Renewed application for leave to appeal against a finding that certain words in a letter written by the applicant, who was the defendant in the proceedings, were defamatory of the claimant and summary judgment for the latter with damages to be assessed, and a declaration embodying the findings.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 593

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268761

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 202 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.251791

Mr Curistan, a chartered accountant, prominent in Northern Ireland, contended that an article published by the defendant which was partly based on statements made in Parliament, was defamatory of him.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 926 (QB), [2008] 1 WLR 126, [2007] 4 All ER 486

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd; Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford, Viscount De L’Isle v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 1986
Justification To be Clearly Set Out
The former practice which dictated that a defendant who wished to rely on a different meaning in support of a plea of justification or fair comment, did not have to set out in his defence the meaning on which he based his plea, was ill-founded and . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.251482

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3159 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.247987

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1496 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.243162

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 task of identifying the meanings involved.
Held: ‘the over-arching question is what overall impression The Sunday Times article made on me when considering what impact it would have had on the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader reading the article once in June 2004.’ Knowing in advance that this was the required approach for a judge when deciding an issue of meaning, I deliberately read the article complained of before reading the parties’ respective statements of case or the rival skeleton arguments. What I propose to do, in an attempt to resolve the dilemma which I mentioned at the outset of this judgment, is to indicate straightaway what impression the article had on me when I came to it afresh as a Sunday Times reader would have done in June 2004. I will thereafter, as a separate exercise, address the detailed textual arguments which have, inevitably, been addressed to me by both sides. I will at that stage consider whether such a more detailed analysis casts doubt on my initial impression. The hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader would have understood The Sunday Times article as a whole, read once in conjunction with its headline, photographs and their captions, to mean that Mr Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance in cycling competitions. The Sunday Times article of 13 June 2004 bears the meaning for which Mr Armstrong contends.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1614 (QB), Times 07-Jul-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 29-May-2002
A libel defence of justification which was based on ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion’ must focus on conduct of claimant that gives rise to suspicion. It was not permissible to rely upon hearsay. Defendant may not plead as ‘grounds’ material which . .
Cited – 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 – Hartt v Newspaper Publishing PLC CA 26-Oct-1989
The possible variety of meanings of the words complained of in a defamation action is already factored into the single meaning rule. Neill LJ said: ‘The court should give to the material complained of the natural and ordinary meaning which it would . .
Cited – Skuse v Granada Television CA 30-Mar-1993
The claimant complained that the defendant had said in a television programme that he had failed to act properly when presenting his expert forensic evidence in court in the trial of the Birmingham Six.
Held: The court should give to the . .
Cited – Gillick v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another CA 19-Oct-1995
Words which were broadcast were capable of meaning that the Plaintiff’s behaviour had contributed to deaths. She was a campaigner against the giving of contraceptive advice to young girls.
Held: The statement was defamatory. The full test was: . .
Cited – Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others QBD 14-Oct-2005
The court decided the issue of what meaning the words complained of would have been understood to bear. The ordinary reader of an article may well not think in legalistic terms such as ‘strong grounds to suspect’ or ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ . .
Cited – 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 – 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 . .
See also – Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 17-Dec-2004
Eady J said: ‘repetitive and loose talk about questions can convey the impression there are reasonable grounds to suspect.’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd CA 2-Jun-2010
The claimant sold a sweetener ingredient. The defendant shop advertised its own health foods range with the label ‘no hidden nasties’ and in a situation which, the claimant said, suggested that its ingredient was a ‘nasty’, and it claimed under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.243159

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1191 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.242709

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2160 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.236716

Lord Esher MR said: ‘It could not be denied that the court had jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction before trial. It was, however, a most delicate jurisdiction to exercise, because, though Fox’s Act only applied to indictments and informations for libel, the practice under that Act had been followed in civil actions for libel, that the question of libel or no libel was for the jury. It was for the jury and not for the Court to construe the document and to say whether it was a libel or not. To justify the Court in granting an interim injunction it must come to a decision upon the question of libel or no libel before the jury decided whether it was a libel or not. Therefore, the jurisdiction was of a delicate nature. It ought only to be exercised in the clearest cases, where any jury would say that the matter complained of was libellous, and where, if the jury did not so find, the Court would set aside the verdict as unreasonable. The Court must also be satisfied that in all probability the alleged libel was untrue, and if written on a privileged occasion that there was malice on the part of the defendant. It followed from those three rules that the Court could only on the rarest occasions exercise the jurisdiction.’
Lindley LJ ‘agreed with the rules laid down by the Master of the Rolls, and he was not prepared to say that the jury might not find that this was no libel, or that the alleged libel was true. The injunction, therefore, ought not to have been granted. Both the Judge at Chambers and the Divisional Court had suggested a form of circular; but it was no part of a Judge’s duty to do so, except for the purposes of putting an end to litigation, and the Court ought not to settle a draft form of what might turn out to be a libel.’

Judges:

Lord Esher MR, Lindley LJ

Citations:

(1887) 3 TLR 846

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bonnard v Perryman QBD 1891
The libel in issue was a very damaging one. Unless it could be justified at the trial it was one in which a jury would give the plaintiff ‘very serious damages’. The court was asked to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain publication.
Approved – Bonnard v Perryman CA 2-Jan-1891
Although the courts possessed a jurisdiction, ‘in all but exceptional cases’, they should not issue an interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication of a libel which the defence sought to justify except where it was clear that that defence . .
Cited – Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
Cited – Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others QBD 11-Apr-2013
The claimant sought an order to restrain anticipated defamatory comments and evidence to be given to an employment tribunal.
Held: It could not be said as the claimant asserted that dfeences were bound to fail, and no determination should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.219251

The Claimant requested summary judgment on the fair comment defence to his defamation claim which was pleaded by the Defendant: ‘the Claimant’s conduct in relation to the false claims and criticisms has contributed in large part to a madness which has let perhaps hundreds of thousands of people die unnecessarily.’
Held: The court reviewed the authorities. Tugendhat J recited the reasons given by the Defendant for saying that the words were clearly comment. First was that the nature of the column supported that interpretation: it was not a news column but an opinion piece. The judge accepted that: ‘The Defendants have a real prospect of persuading the court that the statement (that the Claimant had contributed to letting people die unnecessarily) is something which the reasonable reader can recognise as comment in the sense that the statement is, or can reasonably be inferred to be, a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark or observation.’
The decision in Kemsley had been ‘overtaken’ by section 6 of the Defamation Act 1952, and he could not conclude that the defendants had no real prospect of proving any of the statements of fact upon which they relied. He could not conclude either that the defendants had no real prospect of succeeding in their plea in reliance upon section 6.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 398 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd; Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford, Viscount De L’Isle v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 1986
Justification To be Clearly Set Out
The former practice which dictated that a defendant who wished to rely on a different meaning in support of a plea of justification or fair comment, did not have to set out in his defence the meaning on which he based his plea, was ill-founded and . .
Cited – Cruise and Another v Express Newspapers Plc and Another CA 22-Jul-1998
The Court of Appeal should always be reluctant to reverse an interlocutory finding of a judge at first instance that the words alleged to be libellous are capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged. . .

Cited by:

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

Defamation

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266528

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2735 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 27-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 7-Mar-2006
The claimant resided in Romania, and sought damages for libel. The magazine had obtained an order for security for costs. An offer had been made to cover the sum ordered, and no stifling could now happen.
Held: Any order for security costs in . .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 12-Oct-2007
. .

Cited by:

Appeal From – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant appealed from a decision that the occasion of publication was not privileged. He sought Reynolds protection.
Held: Appeal dismissed. . .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another (No 4) QBD 4-Mar-2009
Orders were sought to strike out part of the defendants defence of justification to an allegation of defamation.
Held: Where there remains the possibility of a jury trial, it becomes especially important to identify the issues the jurors are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.261580

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1710 (QB), [2007] 1 WLR 495

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.244012

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 102 (QB), [2005] 4 All ER 96

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Defamation

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.347821

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 68 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Defamation

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264061

Judges:

MacKay J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3214 (QB), [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 188

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Olafsson v Gissurarson QBD 8-Dec-2006
Judgment in default had been entered against the defendant after the court had in its own discretion corrected an error in service of the claim form. The form had been served personally in Reykjavik, but that form of service was not allowed in . .

Cited by:

Appeal From – Olafsson v Gissurarson (No 2) CA 3-Mar-2008
The defendant appealed against an order that service of the claim form could be dispensed with.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR said: ‘the whole purpose of service is to inform the defendant of the contents of the claim form and the nature of the . .
See Also – Olafsson v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 22-Oct-2009
The claimant sought damages after the defendant had negligently failed to arrange for the service of the claimant’s defamation proceedings on a defendant in Iceland leaving the action time barred.
Held: The Claimant had not acted unreasonably . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.247989

When looking at a political speech, the court should be careful of over-elaborate analysis.

Judges:

Nicola Davies DBE J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2201 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Waterson v Lloyd MP and Another CA 28-Feb-2013
The former MP for Eastbourne had brought an action for defamation against the appellant, the current MP and his agent in respect of election materials used by them. The appellants had relied on the defence of fair comment, and now appealed against . .

Cited by:

Cited – Monroe v Hopkins QBD 10-Mar-2017
The claimant, a transgender chef and food blogger claimed in defamation against the defendant journalist in respect of two tweets. The court now set out to decide the meanings, whether they were defamatory by nature, and whether the serious harm . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.513782

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 accompanied by Civil Evidence Act notices in May of this year.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2322 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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. . .
See Also – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL QBD 20-Jan-2004
It is almost inevitable that in a Reynolds privilege case to be tried by jury there will be presented to them a list of questions, sometimes no doubt formidably long. The object is to enable the judge to have the factual matrix upon which to make . .
See Also – Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.441428

The claimant sought damages saying that a newspaper article published by the defendant was defamatory. He was the manager of Leeds United Football club, and was said to have lost the dressing room.
Held: The claimant was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified privilege, and the defendant on malice.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3098 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert Cheng 13-Nov-2000
(Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong) For the purposes of the defence to defamation of fair comment: ‘The comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, what are the facts on which the comment is being made. The reader or . .
Cited – Vassiliev v Frank Cass and Co Ltd QBD 13-Jun-2003
. .
Cited – Alexander v Arts Council of Wales CA 9-Apr-2001
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263256

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.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2945 (QB), [2004] 2 All ER 92

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL QBD 20-Jan-2004
It is almost inevitable that in a Reynolds privilege case to be tried by jury there will be presented to them a list of questions, sometimes no doubt formidably long. The object is to enable the judge to have the factual matrix upon which to make . .
See Also – Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263160

The claimant complained of part of the expression of the government’s anti-terrorism policy. His public law challenge failed, and he now appealed against preliminary rulings in his claim in defamation.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 933

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.638813

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 293 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.347390

Brooke LJ attempted to draw a distinction between simple cases.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Waller LJ, Brooke LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 3017, [2000] 1 WLR 2150

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mahon v Rahn QBD 19-Jun-1996
Directors of a London firm of stockbrokers brought libel proceedings against two Swiss bankers.
Held: The absolute immunity which is given to both witnesses and potential witnesses extends to all those taking part in a criminal investigation . .
See Also – Mahon and Another v Rahn and Others (1) CA 12-Jun-1997
Two company directors sued Swiss bankers who had responded to enquiries from the police in London. The charges which followed had been dismissed, and the directors sued in defamation, seeking to rely upon the materials sent to the police.

Cited by:

See Also – Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2) CA 8-Jun-2000
The defendant’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v Copeland CA 22-Jul-2014
The defendant appealed against the award of damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosection, saying that the question posed for the jury were misdirections, and that the jury’s decision was perverse. The claimant was attending the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258643

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 that there was ‘concern that [the claimant] might be grooming S for prostitution.’ The two individual employees of the defendant Council responsible for the publication admitted that it should not have happened and that the explanation was one of mistake and a misunderstanding on their part.
Held: Words published at such conferences were protected by qualified but not absolute privilege. The public interest was the same as in S -v- Newham. The Human Rights Act had come into force since, but the same interests had to be balanced.
Tugendhat J said that: ‘This is a case of an existing and established relationship, going back many years, between the mother’s family and the Social Services Department of the Council. Accordingly, Kearns supports the following conclusion. The fact that the information in the words complained of was not verified (or not ‘evidence based’) could not take the case outside the protection of qualified privilege unless [the authors of the report] were deliberately publishing what they knew to be outside the official guidance known to them.
It is true that the duties of the Council in this case (which were being performed on their behalf by [the authors]) were public law duties imposed upon them by the Children Act. If the words complained of are published to [a] person to whom there is no duty to publish, or at a time, or in other circumstances when there is no duty to publish, the consequences of that do call for consideration.
However, in my judgment what matters is that the relationship between the Defendants and the publishees was an established one which plainly requires the flow of free and frank communications in both directions on all questions relevant to the discharge of the Council’s functions.’

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

Times 07-Jan-2005, [2004] EWHC 2866 (QB), [2005] EWHC 102 (QB

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – S v Newham London Borough Council CA 24-Feb-1998
A Local Authority which was relaying the facts underlying a list of people it felt were unsuitable to work with children to the minister has no immunity from a defamation action. . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 by:

Cited – McKennitt and others v Ash and Another QBD 21-Dec-2005
The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
Held: . .
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 – 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 . .
See Also – W v Westminister City Council QBD 10-Feb-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.222531

A lady interested in the poor, and president of the district nursing association, believed that owing to the opinions held by the parish medical officer the district nurse s services were not employed as frequently as they ought to have been. The Parish Council, which contributed to the nursing association, had considered the matter and had instructed the medical officer to employ the nurse in such cases as he considered necessary. The president of the nursing association having had brought under her notice the case of an old age pensioner, who was being attended by the medical officer, and who ought as she thought to have had the benefit of the nurse’s services, wrote to the chairman of the parish council. The medical officer who had attended the pensioner as a private patient innuendoed the letter as imputing professional negligence, and brought an action of damages for slander.
Held: (rev. judgment of the First Division) that the letter was privileged.
The appellant ‘was in fact president of the association, and her position as such president, coupled with the general interest that she took in the welfare of the poor, was sufficient to justify a communication made by her to the Parish Council with regard to a circumstance which she believed to show that the respondent was not duly regarding the directions he had received with regard to the district nurse.’-Per Lord Chancellor.
‘To protect those who are not able to protect themselves is a duty which every one owes to society.’- Per Lord Macnaghten in Jenoure v. Delmege, [1891] AC 73 at 77, approved.
Old-age pensioners are not entirely outwith the discharge of the duties which a parish council owes to the poor.
Observations on the province of the Court in the adjustment of an issue for the trial of an action of damages for slander based on a letter which is innuendoed.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Buckmaster), Earl Loreburn, Viscount Haldane, Lord Kinnear, and Lord Atkinson

Citations:

[1916] UKHL 392, 53 SLR 392

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Old Age Pensions Act 1908

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Defamation

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.630682

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2240 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.638460

Judges:

Sir Charles Gray

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 118 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.320867

The court set out to establish the natural and ordinary meanings to be attached to the words complained of in a defamation action, and found defamatory meanings under Chase two principles.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 539 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – 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 – 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: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.323708

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1428 (QB), [2003] EMLR 33

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Blackwell v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 21-Dec-2007
The claimant sought damages saying that a newspaper article published by the defendant was defamatory. He was the manager of Leeds United Football club, and was said to have lost the dressing room.
Held: The claimant was entitled to summary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.263156

Trial of the preliminary issues of meaning in libel action.

Judges:

Nicklin J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3900 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638465

Judges:

Nicklin J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1728 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638457

Judges:

Nicklin J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3960 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638464

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1349 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638229

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1413 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638223

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1469 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638222

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 212 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.266044

Claim for qualified privilege.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 3138 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.263180

Libel action in relation to an article published by the Defendants in the Evening Standard

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2988 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.263262

The claimants sought damages for slander and libel against the defendant. The offending words were in material broadcast on television about allegations (later shown to be untrue) of sexual misconduct against the claimants.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1542 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Patel and Another v K and J Restaurants Ltd and Another CA 28-Oct-2010
The landlord appealed against refusal of forfeiture for breaches of the lease. A covenant provided against use for immoral purposes, and the sub-tenant had been found to be running a brothel. The tenant said that he had been concerned of an action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.263163

The appellant had failed in his action for damages against the newspaper which had accused him of a plot to kidnap the wife of an England footballer. He now sought leave to appeal.
Held: Evidence unavailable at the trial now suggested that the journalist may have been involved in the manufacture of the plot and that the claimant’s part never rose above initial discussions. Leave was granted.

Judges:

Rix, Moses LJJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 955

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Roe and Another v Robert McGregor and Sons Ltd; Bills v Roe CA 1968
The plaintiff was driving a van at night. He didn’t see a ‘road closed’ sign erected by the defendant contractors, and proceede down a 30 ft bank injuring himself and his passenger. He said the contractors’ the sign was inadequate and that he had . .
Appeal from – Turcu v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 4-May-2005
Chilling effect of defamation costs structures
Eady J said: ‘The claimant in these proceedings is seeking damages against News Group Newspapers Ltd, as publishers of The News of the World, in respect of articles appearing in the editions of that newspaper dated 3 November 2002 . . He issued his . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 10-Feb-2012
The claimant said that an article published by the defendant was defamatory. He said that the article implied that in his business associations he had put others at risk to their reputations.
Held: The action failed. The words were indeed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245946

Judges:

Jay J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1337 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.638221

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3292 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.457719