Category: Defamation

W v JH and Another: QBD 5 Mar 2008

The claimant had been an employee of the defendant council. A complaint had been made about his conduct in 1993 and 1994. A disciplinary hearing had been held and the claimant was issued with a final warning to be placed on his file. The notification letter stated that this would be reviewed for removal after a period of 18 months. The claimant left employment with the defendant and some 10 years later, in 2005, found work with a university. A current employee of the council, acting on her own initiative, but happening to know of the complaints that had been made in 1994 and 1995 against the claimant, notified the university about them. The claimant sued and the defence was qualified privilege.
Held: The application for summary judgment to CPR Part 24 was dismissed.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 399 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Clift v Slough Borough Council and Another QBD 6-Jul-2009
The claimant sought damages for defamation. The council had decided that she had threatened a member of staff and notified various people, and entered her name on a violent persons register. She alleged malice, the council pleaded justification and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.266530

Bray v Deutsche Bank Ag: QBD 18 Jun 2009

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1356 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – 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

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.347105

Roberts and Another v Gable and others: QBD 12 May 2006

The court considered the merits of a Reynolds defence: ‘reporting both sides, in a disinterested way, is an important element in the doctrine of reportage. That is not to say, of course, that a journalist or publisher will be deprived of the opportunity of such a defence merely by reason of having a particular personal or corporate political stance. What is important in this context is not so much the political stance of the defendant, but rather the way in which the particular dispute or controversy is being reported. There is no doubt, for example, that Mr Gable is far from neutral so far as the BNP is concerned, but that does not mean that he is incapable of objective and disinterested reporting of what goes on within the party, although naturally it may require that any such defence be scrutinised with particular care.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1025 (QB), [2006] EMLR 23, [2006] EMLR 692

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Roberts and Another v Gable and others CA 2-Nov-2006
. .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241662

Tolley v J S Fry and Sons Ltd: HL 1931

The plaintiff was an amateur golfer. The defendant, without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, published adverts showing the plaintiff and his caddy each with bars of the defendant’s chocolate protruding from their back pockets. The plaintiff said that this carried an implied defamatory message that he had been paid for the advertisement, and had ‘prostituted his reputation’ as an amateur golf player. Evidence showed that the defendant had considered this result before issuing the adverts, and that people had made just that inference. The plaintiff might have been barred from several golf clubs.
Held: The picture was capable of bearing the meanings suggested. The matter should be reheard, but as to the quantum of damages only.

Citations:

[1931] AC 333, [1931] All ER 131, [1931] 100 LJKB 328, [1931] 145 LT 1, [1931] 47 TLR 351, [1931] 75 Sol Jo 220, [1931] UKHL 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Tolley v J S Fry and Sons Ltd CA 1930
The plaintiff, a famous amateur golfer, had been shown in an advert by the defendants with a bar of their chocolate in his pocket. He claimed that this suggested that he had taken money for the advert for the endorsement, and that this was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Modi and Another v Clarke CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimants, organisers of the Indian Premier cricket League, met with organisations in England seeking to establish a similar league in the Northern Hemisphere. A copy of a note came to the defendant, chairman of the England and Wales Cricket . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241600

McKeith v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 14 Jun 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1162 (QB), [2005] EMLR 32

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Polly Peck PLC v Trelford CA 1986
The plaintiffs complained of the whole of one article and parts of two other articles published about them in The Observer. The defamatory sting was that Mr Asil Nadir (the fourth plaintiff) had deceived or negligently misled shareholders, . .
Cited – Rechem International Ltd v Express Newspapers CA 19-Jun-1992
Neill LJ said: ‘A balance has to be struck between the legitimate defence of free speech and free comment on the one hand and on the other hand the costs which may be involved if every peripheral issue is examined and debated at the trial.’ and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Guardian News and Media Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2008
The defendant newspaper published articles making allegations as to the use of offshore tax avoidance arrangements. The claimant sought damages also in malicious falsehood. The defendants sought to rely on an offer of amends served only a few . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.227004

Colchester Oyster Fishery Limited v Purslow: 10 Jun 1997

Qualified privilege – malice

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

Unreported, 10 June 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Defamation

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.194322

Hung v Gardiner: 6 May 2003

Canlii (Court of Appeal for British Columbia) The court was asked whether a person who provides information to a professional disciplinary body about the conduct of one of its members is liable in an action brought by that member. The clear answer is that the communication of the information is subject to absolute privilege, which provides a defence to all claims.

Citations:

[2003] BCCA 257, 13 BCLR (4th) 298, 1 Admin LR (4th) 152, 227 DLR (4th) 282

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

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

Defamation, Commonwealth

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.431719

Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation: QBD 9 Mar 2006

The claimant said that the defendant had accused her of falsifying hospital waiting statistics. The defendant pleaded justification.
Held: There were stark differences in the evidence given by different witnesses. Nevertheless the evidence that there had been wrongdoing was sufficient. Though not all the imputations had been proved to be true, in the light of what had been shown, the remaining untrue implication could not further damage the claimant’s reputation.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 386 (QB), [2006] 1 All ER 154

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – Nina Naicker Gow v Dr Rosemary Harker CA 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had taken a blood sample. The claimant asserted that because the needle had been inserted incorrectly she had suffered damage to her wrist.
Held: Guidance from cases involving allegations of fraud could be relevant when assessing . .
Cited – Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (‘The Ocean Frost’) HL 22-May-1985
Ostensible authority creates estoppel
Apparent authority as agent can arise where an employer by words or conduct has represented that his employee, who has purported to act on behalf of the employer, is authorised to do what he is purporting to do. Ostensible authority depends on a . .
See Also – Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 11-Nov-2005
. .
See Also – Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2-Dec-2005
The defendant reported an enquiry as to the alleged falsification of waiting list figures at a local hospital. It argued for a Reymolds qualified privilege and justification. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Garrett v Halton Borough Council CA 16-Mar-2007
The defendants argued that the conditional fee agreement in use by the claimant’s solicitors was void and so in breach of the rules.
Held: In assessing whether there was any ‘interest’ for the purposes of the Regulation, the court looked to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238933

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 need for a jury trial; but a question relating to a person’s ‘fitness for public office’ is one needing detailed consideration of documents, and a jury trial may not then be appropriate. Given the overall complexity of the case resulting from the proliferation of issues and sub-issues, the amount of detail, the body of documentation and the number of witnesses, the interests of justice were best served by a painstaking, dispassionate, impartial, orderly approach to deciding where the truth lies. It was in the public interest and in the interest of each of the parties that the case should culminate in findings, for or against the plaintiff, on each of the main issues in controversy. A general verdict of a jury could leave room for doubt and continuing debate whether, on important and hotly contested issues, the plaintiff or the defendants had been vindicated. A reasoned judgment, giving the judge’s conclusions and his detailed reasons for reaching them, would by contrast settle, one would hope once and for all, whether or not the plaintiff had misconducted himself in each and every one of the ways charged. It also seems to me a serious disadvantage of jury trial that there should be a first trial of liability only immediately followed, if the general verdict were in the plaintiff’s favour, by a further trial on quantum. This would almost certainly lead to the recalling of certain witnesses and it would lead to the leading of considerable evidence concerning the aggravation of damages which is pleaded in this case with unusual fullness.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ

Citations:

Times 21-May-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1710, [1997] EMLR 415

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 69

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Beta Construction Ltd v Channel Four Television Co Ltd CA 1990
When considering the number of documents to be considered when deciding whether a defamation case should proceed before a judge or judge and jury, the court was entitled to look also at any specialised technical content of the documents and also . .
Cited – Taylor v Anderton (Police Complaints Authority Intervening) CA 19-Jan-1995
Reports, which had been prepared for the purposes of a police complaint procedure, could be entitled to protection from disclosure under a public interest immunity certificate. The court also considered the relationship between the documentation and . .
Cited – Goldsmith v Pressdram Ltd CA 1988
The court considered whether to order a defamation trial to be before a judge alone, or with a jury.
Held: The word ‘examination’ has a wide connotation, is not limited to the documents which contain the actual evidence in the case and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages for defamation. The claimed that the article had caused very substantial losses (andpound;230 million) to them by affecting their market capitalisation value. The defendant sought to strike out that part of the claim. . .
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 . .
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

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.142106

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 Reynolds privilege.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had applied the correct tests for the balance between freedom of the press and the duty not to defame: ‘the newspaper was indeed entitled to report both the finding of the Baghdad documents and their content, but only subject both to giving Mr Galloway a fair opportunity to comment on them and to carrying out such investigation as was appropriate before publication.’ The judge had accepted that the paper had gone beyond mere comment to adopt the allegations, making very serious accusations against him. Whatever the precise line between fact and comment, the allegations which the judge considered not to be protected by qualified privilege were allegations of fact not opinion. The defences of fair comment and qualified provilege had been considered correctly by the judge.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR said: ‘The right to publish must however be balanced against the rights of the individual. That balance is a matter for the judge. It is not a matter for an appellate court. This court will not interfere with the judge’s conclusion after weighing all the circumstances in the balance unless he has erred in principle or reached a conclusion which is plainly wrong.’

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Chadwick LJ, Laws LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 17, Times 06-Feb-2006, [2006] EMLR 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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 – Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .
Cited – Prager And Oberschlick v Austria ECHR 26-Apr-1995
Article 10 requires that journalists be permitted a good deal of latitude in how they present their material and that a degree of exaggeration must also be accepted. The media have a special place in any democratic society as purveyor of information . .
Cited – Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway ECHR 20-May-1999
A newspaper and its editor complained that their right to freedom of expression had been breached when they were found liable in defamation proceedings for statements in articles which they had published about the methods used by seal hunters in the . .
Cited – Selisto v Finland ECHR 16-Nov-2004
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and . .
Cited – Kemsley v Foot HL 25-Feb-1952
Fair Comment Crticism of Newspaper Publisher
The plaintiff alleged that the headline to an article written by the defendant which criticised the behaviour of the Beaverbrook Press, and which read ‘Lower than Kemsley’ was defamatory. The defendant pleaded fair comment. The plaintiff appealed. . .
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – Loutchansky v 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 – Branson v Bower (No 1) CA 24-May-2001
The test of whether comment was fair comment is simply that of whether the opinion was honestly expressed, and on the basis of facts accurately stated. There is no special rule for imputations of corruption or dishonest motives. Nor is there any . .
Cited – Thoma v Luxembourg ECHR 29-Mar-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award
The Court was . .
Cited – Clarke v Norton 1910
(Victoria) The court considered what was fair comment: ‘More accurately it has been said that the sense of comment is ‘something which is or can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation etc.’ . .
Cited – Lingens v Austria ECHR 8-Jul-1986
Freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, . .
Cited – Busuioc v Moldova ECHR 21-Dec-2004
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 10 with regard to certain statements; No violation of Art. 10 with regard to other statements; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others QBD 13-Jul-2006
The claimant police officer sought damages from the defendants who had published a book alleging that he had been corrupt. The defendants claimed privilege under Reynolds and the 1996 Act.
Held: The defence of qualified privilege failed. . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd CA 21-Feb-2007
The defendant journalist had published confidential material obtained from the claimant’s secure hospital at Ashworth. The hospital now appealed against the refusal of an order for him to to disclose his source.
Held: The appeal failed. Given . .
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 – Malik v Newspost Ltd and others QBD 20-Dec-2007
The claimant, a politician, sought damages after another local politician accused him of using physical intimidation at elections. The defendant claimed a Reynolds privilege.
Held: This was not investigative journalism, and ‘There is no doubt . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation v CAFCASS Legal and others FD 30-Mar-2007
Parents of a child had resisted care proceedings, and now wished the BBC to be able to make a TV programme about their case. They applied to the court for the judgment to be released. Applications were also made to have a police officer’s and . .
Doiubted – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237908

Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd: QBD 16 Dec 2005

The claimants sought disclosure of documents in their claim for damages for defamation against the respondent. The defendants said that the documents sought, namely reporter’s notes were not relevant to the defamation alleged. There was a request also for disclosure of the number of times a web-page had been accessed, which the defendants said would go only as to damages. Other disclosures were sought.
Held: The various items were to be disclosed.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2947 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages for defamation. The claimed that the article had caused very substantial losses (andpound;230 million) to them by affecting their market capitalisation value. The defendant sought to strike out that part of the claim. . .
See Also – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 25-Feb-2005
The court considered whether damages in a defamation action pursued in respect of one publication were to be increased by subsequent publications not themselves the subject of a claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236707

Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation: QBD 2 Dec 2005

The defendant reported an enquiry as to the alleged falsification of waiting list figures at a local hospital. It argued for a Reymolds qualified privilege and justification.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2787 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 11-Nov-2005
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 9-Mar-2006
The claimant said that the defendant had accused her of falsifying hospital waiting statistics. The defendant pleaded justification.
Held: There were stark differences in the evidence given by different witnesses. Nevertheless the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236710

Kwasi Bekoe v Horace Broomes: PC 31 Oct 2005

PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant defendant was an attorney-at-law, and the respondent a senior magistrate who was said to have accused the claimant of having given a bribe. The appellant challenged the finding of slander, saying that he had not said what was alleged.
Held: The appeal failed. It was essentially an appeal on the facts, and no exception had been established to allow the Board to consider such a challenge outside its normal practice.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell

Citations:

[2005] UKPC 39

Links:

Bailii, PC

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Cited – Robins v National Trust Company Ltd 1927
The rule restricting a third tier court from upsetting a finding where there have been concurrent judgments of two courts on a pure question of fact were not based on any statutory rule. . .
Cited – Jagan v Ganpat and Others 1999
(Court of Appeal in Guyana) An appellate court ought to act very cautiously before deciding to overturn findings of fact by a trial judge, even where it inclines to the view that the trial judge’s treatment of the evidence in a written judgment had . .
Cited – Srimati Bibhabati Devi v Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy and Others PC 30-Jul-1946
(Bengal) The appellant sought to claim a substantial inheritance. From many years before it had been thought that he had been buried after dying of syphilis. He claimed he had been resuscitated, taken away and brought up by sanyasi. His identity . .
Cited – Chua Chee Chor v Chua Kim Yong PC 1962
The Board’s practice of restricting the hearing a dispute of fact to situations where two courts had made consistent findings of fact is not immutable and the Board may in special circumstances vary their application to some degree. . .
Cited – Benmax v Austin Motor Co Ltd HL 1955
Except for cases which are expressly limited to questions of law, an appellant is entitled to appeal from the Court of Session to the House against any finding, whether it be a finding of law, a finding of fact or a finding involving both law and . .
Cited – Watt (or Thomas) v Thomas HL 1947
When Scots Appellate Court may set decision aside
The House considered when it was appropriate for an appellate court in Scotland to set aside the judgment at first instance.
Lord Thankerton said: ‘(1) Where a question of fact has been tried by a judge without a jury, and there is no question . .

Cited by:

Cited – Smith and Another v Harris PC 30-Oct-2006
(Cayman Islands) The respondent appealed a finding of negligence. She drove a car along a road colliding with three pedestrians, the claimants. The pedestrians said they had been walking in single file in a lay-by off the main carriageway. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Defamation

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236684

Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation: QBD 11 Nov 2005

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2503 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2-Dec-2005
The defendant reported an enquiry as to the alleged falsification of waiting list figures at a local hospital. It argued for a Reymolds qualified privilege and justification. . .
See Also – Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 9-Mar-2006
The claimant said that the defendant had accused her of falsifying hospital waiting statistics. The defendant pleaded justification.
Held: There were stark differences in the evidence given by different witnesses. Nevertheless the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Costs

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235127

GKR Karate (UK) Ltd v Yorkshire Post Newspapers Ltd and others (No.1): CA 11 Jan 2000

The claimants alleged defamation by the respondent in articles suggesting that they were not fit people to teach karate. The respondent claimed justification. A order had been made for trial of two preliminary issues against which order the claimants now appealed.

Judges:

May, Tuckey LJJ

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 420, [2000] CP Rep 47, [2000] 2 All ER 931, [2000] 1 WLR 2571, [2000] EMLR 396

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another CA 18-Jan-2001
The claimant had been awarded andpound;85,000 damages in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused him of cheating at football. The newspaper sought to appeal saying that the verdict was perverse and the defence of qualified privilege . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231541

Panday v Gordon: PC 5 Oct 2005

(Trinidad and Tobago) A senior politician had accused an opponent of pseudo-racism. The defendant asserted that he had a defence under the constitution, allowing freedom of political speech.
Held: The appeal failed. The statements were defamatory statements of fact. Justification was not pleaded and a defence of privilege was not pursued. The damages were substantial but awarded by a court which knew the significance of the words, and the local context.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond

Citations:

[2005] UKPC 36

Links:

Bailii, PC

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 – Branson v Bower (No 1) CA 24-May-2001
The test of whether comment was fair comment is simply that of whether the opinion was honestly expressed, and on the basis of facts accurately stated. There is no special rule for imputations of corruption or dishonest motives. Nor is there any . .
Cited – Matthew vThe State PC 7-Jul-2004
(Trinidad and Tobago) The court questioned the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty in Trinidad.
Held: The constitution of Trinidad, when implemented, forbade cruel and unusual punishment, but also preserved existing penalties. The . .
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 – Lange v Atkinson 21-Jun-2000
(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) The court rejected a test of reasonableness before accepting a defence to defamation associated with the political nature of the speech. . .
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 – Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation 8-Jul-1997
(High Court of Australia) The court propounded a test of reasonableness of conduct in respect of the publication of political information. Generally publication will not be reasonable unless the maker of the statement had reasonable grounds for . .
Cited – Morris Manning and the Church of Scientology of Toronto v S Casey Hill and The Attorney General for Ontario and others 20-Jul-1995
(Supreme Court of Canada) The publication of defamatory statements ‘constitutes an invasion of the individual’s personal privacy and is an affront to that person’s dignity’. . .
Cited – Botiuk v Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd 21-Sep-1995
(Supreme Court of Canada) Defamation was alleged against lawyers writing on behalf of their clients.
Held: The defendant lawyers were ‘duty-bound’ to undertake a reasonable investigation into the correctness of the document they were signing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Defamation, Constitutional

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230968

Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 11 Nov 2003

A policemen sued in defamation. The newspaper pleaded Reynolds qualified privilege.
Held: The plea was struck out. There has developed tendency of defendants to plead qualified privilege since the Reynolds decision in ‘rather waffly generalities’, and such defences required close scrutiny.
Eady J said: ‘Specifically in the context of the right to jury trial, judgment should not be given at any stage which has the effect of depriving the parties of a jury decision in any case where the defence may depend at least in part on a finding of fact which would be properly open to that tribunal: see e.g. Wallis v Valentine [2003] EMLR 8 at [13] and Branson v Bower [2002] QB 737 at [744]. Thus, even if a judge thinks that a particular factual conclusion for which one side contends is somewhat far-fetched, it is the jury’s credulity rather than the judge’s that must be kept in mind. The parties should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt: see e.g. Spencer v Sillitoe [2003] EMLR 10 at [31] and Bataille v Newland [2002] EWHC 1692 (QB) at pp 6-7.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2004] EMLR 33, [2003] EWHC 2799 (QB

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – B v N and Another QBD 31-Jul-2002
There was as allegation of defamation by one doctor against another.
Held: Eady J said: ‘To participate in a publication in such a way as to be liable in accordance with the law of defamation is not, I should emphasise, to be equated with . .

Cited by:

See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 8-Apr-2005
. .
Cited – Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd and David Walsh, Alan English CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant sought damages after publication by the first defendant of articles which it was claimed implied that he had taken drugs. The paper claimed qualified privilege, and claimed Reynolds immunity.
Held: The defence of qualified . .
Cited – Ali v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-Jan-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation, saying that a combination of publications identified him.
Held: Eady J briefly discussed the effect of hyperlinks in the context of a dispute about meaning or reference in a defamation case. . .
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Mar-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation, saying that the defendant newspaper (Daily Mail) had implied abuse of his friendship with a Police Commissioner to obtain contracts. The defendant denied any meaning defamatory of the claimant.
Held: . .
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Nov-2011
. .
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2012
Judgment after trial on defamation case
Mrs Justice Sharp considered the use of hearsay evidence admitted under section 4 of the 1995 Act: ‘As the authors of Phipson on Evidence, 17th edition, say at paragraph 29-15 ‘the [Civil Evidence] Act is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229847

Bookbinder v Tebbitt: 1989

The defendant charged the plaintiff with improperly spending andpound;50,000 on over-printing on local authority stationery the message ‘Support Nuclear Free Zones’.
Held: An attempt to plead as justification that the plaintiff had squandered public funds in a number of other unrelated matters was struck out: ‘The clear impression which I have formed of these words. . . is that the ordinary man envisaged by Lord Reid [in Lewis] would regard the defamatory charge in the words used, if there was any, as limited to the spending of stated sums on the stated project.’

Judges:

Ralph Gibson LJ

Citations:

[1989] 1 WLR 640

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 by:

Cited – Loveless v Earl; Capital and Counties (Financial Services) Limited CA 4-Nov-1998
When a defendant claimed qualified privilege and the Plaintiff alleged that the words complained of were issued with malice, the defendant will not prevented from reliance on qualified privilege if it can show that the words have an honestly . .
Cited – Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Feb-2006
The defendant sought to defend the claim for defamation by claiming fair comment. The claimant said that the relevant facts were not known to the defendant at the time of the publication.
Held: To claim facts in aid of a defence of fair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194332

Ritchie and Co v Sexton: HL 19 Mar 1891

Reparation – Slander – Innuendo – Issue – Question of Construction Left to Jury.
A person who objected to certain questions put in the House of Commons by a member of Parliament, wrote remonstrating with him for traducing him by false charges which the questions implied to be true. The writer illustrated his case by supposing that he should induce an opponent of his correspondent to put questions in the House of Commons implying that his correspondent had had delirium tremens and had been intoxicated in public, and declared that such a course would be as much justified as that to which the writer objected. He disclaimed all intention of giving pain ‘by the recital of these imaginary stories.’
The letter was published in a newspaper, and the member of Parliament sued the proprietor of the newspaper for damages, on the ground that the letter represented him to be a drunkard.
The defender objected to an issue being allowed and put to a jury, on the ground that the true and obvious meaning of the letter was not to impute anything to the pursuer, but only to put a suppositious case.
Held ( aff. the decision of the First Division) that the pursuer was entitled to an issue, as the letter was capable of being understood in a libellous sense, and that it was for the jury to determine whether there was libel or not.

Judges:

Lords Herschell, Watson, Macnaghten, Bramwell, Morris, and Hannen

Citations:

[1891] UKHL 945, 28 SLR 945

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.636773

Berezovsky v Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Company and Another: QBD 31 Jul 2008

The claimant alleged defamation in a Russian TV programme broadcast on Freeview and available to an watched by Russians in the UK.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1918 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Defamation

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.271310

Gentoo Group Ltd (Formerly Known As Sunderland Housing Company Ltd) and Another v Hanratty: QBD 8 Oct 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2328 (QB)

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

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.278791

Applause Store Productions Ltd and Another v Raphael: QBD 24 Jul 2008

The claimant discovered a false identity in his name on the Facebook web-site, containing allegations about himself and his business. He obtained Norwich Pharmacal relief to identify the author, a former school friend.
Held: The defendant’s explanation that visitors at a party had created the profile was utterly implausible.

Judges:

Richard Parkes QC J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1781 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.271042

Marrinan v Vibart: QBD 1963

The plaintiff sought to sue police officers who had prepared a report for the Director of Public Prosecutions and appeared as witnesses against him at his criminal trial.
Held: The claim failed. Salmon J considered the principle of the privilege given to those making witness statements to the police: ‘It has been well settled law for generations – certainly since Lord Mansfield’s time – that witnesses enjoy absolute immunity from actions brought against them in respect of any evidence they may give in a court of justice. This immunity exists for the benefit of the public, since the administration of justice would be greatly impeded if witnesses were to be in fear that any disgruntled or possibly impecunious persons against whom they gave evidence might subsequently involve them in costly litigation. ‘

Judges:

Salmon J

Citations:

[1963] 1 QB 234

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Marrinan v Vibart CA 2-Jan-1963
Decision upheld (dicta approved) . .
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 – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Defamation

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.267516

Strachan v The Gleaner Company Limited and Stokes: PC 25 Jul 2005

PC (Jamacia) The plaintiff challenged an order setting aside a default assessment of damages in his claim for defamation. After the action was lost, two witnesses had come forward who might have allowed a defence of justification. He claimed that the order amounted to an order for a retrial.
Held: A default judgment is one which has not been decided on the merits. The Courts have jealously guarded their power to set aside judgments where there has been no determination on the merits, even to the extent of refusing to lay down any rigid rules to govern the exercise of their discretion. There having been no determination on the merits in relation to liability, the court had had jurisdiction to set aside the judgment for damages to be assessed. ‘Walker J held that he had jurisdiction to make the order he did. If wrong, his decision could be reversed by the Court of Appeal which would be bound without going into the merits to set aside his substantive order as a nullity. As between the parties, however, and unless and until reversed by the Court of Appeal, his decision (both as to jurisdiction and on the merits) was res judicata. As a judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction Smith J had no power to set it aside.’
Lord Millett said that an order made by a judge without jurisdiction was obviously vulnerable, but not wholly without effect. It must be obeyed unless and until set aside.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Sir Charles Mantell

Citations:

[2005] UKPC 33, [2005] 1 WLR 3204

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Citing:

Cited – Mason v Desnoes and Geddes Ltd PC 2-Apr-1990
(Jamaica) A section enabled the Court to set aside a judgment where a party had not appeared at the trial.
Held: The reference to ‘the Court or a Judge’ made it clear that the jurisdiction may be exercised by a judge in chambers and: ‘ . . the . .
Cited – Pugh v Cantor Fitzgerald International CA 7-Mar-2001
Where judgment had been entered with damages to be assessed, the issues which could be raised on the assessment of damages were any directly affecting that assessment, but the defendant could not raise an issue which would impugn the judgement . .
Cited – Alpine Bulk Transport Co Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Co Inc The ‘Saudi Eagle’ CA 1986
The defendants, believing that they had no assets, deliberately allowed an interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed to be entered against them by default, and only after damages had been assessed and final judgment entered, realising that . .
Cited – Dipcon Engineering Services Ltd v Bowen and Another PC 1-Apr-2004
PC Grenada ‘Whilst Saudi Eagle is clear authority, if authority were needed, for the proposition that an application to set aside a default judgment can be made (and, if refused, can then be appealed) . .
Cited – Lunnon v Singh CA 1-Jul-1999
Once judgment has been given, whether after a contested hearing or in default, for damages to be assessed, the defendant cannot dispute liability at the assessment hearing. . .
Cited – Evans v Bartlam HL 1937
The House emphasised the width of the jurisdiction to excuse default in the case of a defendant seeking to have a default judgment set aside and to be let in to defend.
Lord Atkin said: ‘The principle obviously is that, unless and until the . .
Obiter remarks criticised – Craig v Kanssen CA 1943
There had been a failure to serve process where service of process was required. The result was that the order made based upon that process was irregular.
Held: In the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, the Court was entitled to set it . .
Cited – In re Pritchard CA 1963
An originating summons seeking relief was accepted and sealed in a local district registry. It ought to have been sealed in the Central Office of the Royal Courts of Justice. Wilberforce J had held that the originating summons was a nullity and that . .
Cited – In re Padstow Total Loss and Collision Assurance Association CA 1882
The High Court had made a winding up order against an insolvent association under a section of the Companies Act 1862 which applied to unregistered companies. The Act prohibited the formation of an unregistered company with more than twenty members. . .

Cited by:

Cited – O’Connor v Piccott and Another PC 17-Feb-2010
(Jamaica) The parties agreed for the sale of land. The seller sought specific performance by the buyer. The buyer had said there was a problem of title. The appellant had failed to defend the proceedings, and appealed against judgment in default. . .
Cited – Park v Cho and Others ChD 24-Jan-2014
The parties disputed the chairmanship of a charity. The claimant succeeded, but a third party later intervened saying that permission had not first been obtained from the Charity Commission as required. The defendant now appealed against the lifting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229324

Spencer v Sillitoe and Another: CA 22 Oct 2002

Appeal from a decision of Morland J, who granted the defendants summary judgment under Civil Procedure Rule 24(2)(a)(2), finding that the claimant, Mr Spencer, had no real prospect of succeeding on his claim.
Held: Buxton LJ said: ‘Bearing in mind the emphasis placed on the right to jury trial in section 69 [of the Senior Court Act 1981] and the analogy drawn by this court in Alexander with the criminal practice in Galbraith, the question in a case such as the present comes down to whether there is an issue of fact on which, on the evidence so far available, the jury could properly, without being perverse, come to a conclusion in favour of the claimant.
That question has to be answered against the background of the great respect that is paid to a jury’s assessment of witnesses after seeing and hearing them, and hearing them cross-examined. It is unlikely that a judge will be able to find that a witness will necessarily be disbelieved by a jury; or that for a jury to believe him would be perverse; when he has not actually heard that witness give evidence and be cross-examined: unless, of course, there is counter evidence that plainly demonstrates the falsity of the witness’s evidence, as opposed, in this case, to rendering it, in the judge’s view, implausible.’

Judges:

Simon Brown VP CA, Buxton, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1579, [2003] EMLR 207, [2003] EMLR 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 24(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Cited – Bray v Deutsche Bank Ag QBD 12-Jun-2008
A former employee of the defendant bank sued in defamation after the bank published a press release about its results which he said was critical of him.
Held: Where there is a real issue as to whether the words are defamatory of the claimant, . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Ali v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-Jan-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation, saying that a combination of publications identified him.
Held: Eady J briefly discussed the effect of hyperlinks in the context of a dispute about meaning or reference in a defamation case. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Defamation

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227932

Mckeown v Attheraces Ltd: QBD 7 Feb 2011

The claimant jockey had been found to have breached the rules of racing and disqualified. He now claimed in defamation against the defendant TV company. The defendant asked for a strike out or stay pending conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Held: Strike out and stay refused.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 179 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.428545

Mclaughlin and Others v London Borough of Lambeth and Another: QBD 2 Nov 2010

Senior members of a school claimed defamation and infringement of their human rights by the defendants. The defendants said that the claims were an abuse, being formulated to circumvent the rule against unincorporated bodies suing in defamation, and requested that the case be struck out.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2726 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation, Human Rights

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.425664

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 where claims for aggravated damages are concerned.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2636 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Defamation

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.278221

Carrie v Tolkien: QBD 15 Jan 2009

The claimant alleged that the defendant had defamed him on his internet blog. The defendant said that the claimant had had the power to remove the comment and therefore consented to the publication.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 29 (QB), [2009] EMLR 9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.280150

Patterson v ICN Photonics Ltd: CA 13 Mar 2003

The Court considered its own power to intervene in a defamation case to look at the meanings found by the judge hearing the case. The established principles ‘do not, however, prevent this court from intervening in an appropriate case, where it is satisfied that the judge has clearly gone wrong as a matter of approach or has reached a conclusion which is patently unsustainable.’ No self-denying ordinance can absolve the Court of Appeal from its responsibility to act where it is satisfied that it should intervene, even where the ruling below has been an ‘inclusive’ one.

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 343

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Burstein CA 22-Jun-2007
The newspaper appealed an award of damages for defamation after its theatre critic’s review of an opera written by the claimant. The author said the article made him appear to sympathise with terrorism.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Keene LJ . .
Cited – 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: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.181153

Carlton Communications Plc and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 9 Nov 2001

The defendant had published a series of articles alleging that certain documentaries made by the claimants were fakes. The claimants sought damages for libel. The defendants asserted that the words complained of were capable of not referring to the first claimant.
Held: The trial should be limited to determining the truth of the real matters at issue. The judge had ruled certain meanings in, and the court should be reluctant to interfere with his ruling, but the party should still be able to put his case, and the judge’s order would not allow that. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mantell, And, Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1644

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Defamation

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.166821

Mitchell v Faber and Faber: CA 24 Mar 1994

As a matter of principle the question of bane and antidote should necessarily be left to the jury. Hirst LJ said: ‘So far as the antidote is concerned, it seems to me that only in the clearest of cases would it be proper for a judge to rule that the sting of words, which are ex hypothesi capable of defamatory meaning in themselves, is drawn by the surrounding context so that in the result those words cease to be capable of a defamatory meaning. In my judgment the general, though perhaps not universal rule should be that this is matter for the jury and not for the judge to decide.’

Judges:

Hirst LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 24 March 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.441574

Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another: QBD 18 Jun 2003

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1461 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another v Steinberg SCCO 27-Mar-2003
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Englefield v Steinberg (No 2) SCS 20-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Pritchard Englefield v Steinberg and Steinberg ChD 30-Jul-2004
Enforcement of charging order absolute. . .
Appeal from – Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another CA 3-Mar-2005
The defendant appealed dismissal of his defence to an action in defamation.
Held: The court proceeded in his absence, discerning two grounds of appeal from the papers. He had suggested that he awaited pro bono representation but was by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.258358

Brady v Norman: QBD 20 Oct 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2481 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen v Brady EAT 31-Mar-2006
The reason adduced by the union for the dismissal of the climant was found by the Tribunal on the facts not to be the true reason for dismissal, the true reason being the union executive committee’s political antipathy to Mr Brady.
Held: It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.277746

Hussein v Farooq and Another: QBD 22 Oct 2008

The claimant said that the defendant had slandered him. The defendant denied using the words alleged or that they were defamatory. The words alleged were: ‘Forget Mr Shah he cannot get you any property’.
Held: He had failed to bring to court proof of the varous elements he was required to establish. None of the claimant’s testimony could be accepted with unqualified confidence. ‘After considering the conflict of evidence, and the shifting nature of the Claimant’s case, I have come to the conclusion that I am not persuaded, on a balance of probabilities, that the Second Defendant spoke the words attributed to him in the pleadings.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2487 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.277124

Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd: QBD 25 Feb 2005

The court considered whether damages in a defamation action pursued in respect of one publication were to be increased by subsequent publications not themselves the subject of a claim.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 262 (QB), [2006] EMLR 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages for defamation. The claimed that the article had caused very substantial losses (andpound;230 million) to them by affecting their market capitalisation value. The defendant sought to strike out that part of the claim. . .
See also – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 25-Feb-2005
The court considered whether damages in a defamation action pursued in respect of one publication were to be increased by subsequent publications not themselves the subject of a claim. . .

Cited by:

See also – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 25-Feb-2005
The court considered whether damages in a defamation action pursued in respect of one publication were to be increased by subsequent publications not themselves the subject of a claim. . .
See Also – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 16-Dec-2005
The claimants sought disclosure of documents in their claim for damages for defamation against the respondent. The defendants said that the documents sought, namely reporter’s notes were not relevant to the defamation alleged. There was a request . .
Cited – Hays Plc v Hartley QBD 17-May-2010
Mr Hartley operated a news agency, and provided to the publisher of the Sunday Mirror, MGN Ltd, allegations of racism that had been levelled at the claimant company by former employees. The allegations were reported in an article headed ”KKK . .
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

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223859

Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: CA 23 Jan 2001

The defendants requested that the defamation claim they faced be struck out despite the apparent reasonable possibility of success.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Longmore LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) CA 12-Mar-2001
The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication.
Held: It is necessary for the defendants to . .

Cited by:

See Also – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) CA 12-Mar-2001
The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication.
Held: It is necessary for the defendants to . .
See Also – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 26-Apr-2001
A defendant could not support a defence in defamation proceedings of qualified privilege by putting before the court matters of which it was unaware at the time of publication. The duty to publish and the interest in receiving the information, and . .
See Also – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .
See Also – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 12-Dec-2002
The court considered the possible affront to jurors in a defamation action when asked to decide some elements of an action, but not others. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222970

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 trial, informed members of the insurance industry, such as the manager of the Association of British Insurers Crime and Fraud Prevention Bureau, that he was guilty. In fact he was subsequently acquitted. The claimant complained that the letters associating him and the business with the accused meant and were understood to mean that he had aided and abetted the commission of numerous serious criminal offences. The director had not personally been suspect, but felt he had been defamed. The defendant appealed summary judgment against him for libel, complaining that the claimant had been allowed to add a claim for slander late in the day.
Held: The judge had to find an equitable solution before allowing a late amendment. The judge had not gone through a detailed analysis, but had addressed the fundamental issue.

Judges:

May LJ, Dyson LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1638, Times 13-Dec-2004, [2005] EMLR 20

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wood v West Midlands Police QBD 8-Dec-2003
The claimant’s busness partner had been investigated by the police. He claimed in defamation after a senior officer circulated business associates and others informing them of the prosecution and suggesting the partners’s guilt. He said he was . .
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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Defamation

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221603

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 assessed as at the point of assessment, and conduct of the defendant after the publication may aggravate or mitigate the damage and therefore the award. The court could not say the awards were wrong. Appeals dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice May

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1708, [2005] 1 All ER 1040

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1996 2

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 – Milne v Express Newspapers CA 28-May-2004
The claimant, having not accepted an offer to make amends, wanted to proceed to a jury trial. To be permitted to do so, he had to seek to establish that the defendants ‘knew or had reason to believe that the statement complained of . . was both . .
Cited – Dingle v Associated Newspapers HL 1964
The plaintiff complained of an article written in the Daily Mail which included the reporting of a report of a Parliamentary select committee. The reporting of the select committee’s report was privileged under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. At . .
Cited – 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 – Abu v MGN Ltd QBD 2003
There should be nothing in any sense ‘rough and ready’ about the assessment of the claimant’s reputation under the offer of amends procedure in the 1996 Act. If compensation is not agreed it should be determined by the court on the same principles . .
Cited – John v MGN Ltd CA 12-Dec-1995
Defamation – Large Damages Awards
MGN appealed as to the level of damages awarded against it namely pounds 350,000 damages, comprising pounds 75,000 compensatory damages and pounds 275,000 exemplary damages. The newspaper contended that as a matter of principle there is no scope in . .
Cited – Cleese v Clark QBD 2003
The court looked at the calculation of damages after an offer of amends under the Act by the defendant.
Held: Such calculations have to be linked to the very different circumstances of each case. Comparisons with awards after jury trial were . .
Cited – Mawdsley v Guardian Newspapers Ltd QBD 2002
The court asked whether the summary judgment procedure under sections 8 to 10 of the 1996 Act, with its ceiling of andpound;10,000, was appropriate in a case in which a jury after a trial might award andpound;30,000. He decided that it was . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 – 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 – Kiam v Neill and Another (No 2) CA 26-Jul-1996
An allegation of insolvency was made against a well known businessman. An apology in agreed terms was published after 3 weeks.
Held: A jury award of 45,000 in damages was not excessive for a libel despite an apology having been given. The . .
Cited – Houston v Smith CA 16-Dec-1993
Doctors operated within the same building. The defendant falsely accused the plaintiff of harassing her and her staff, groping them and fondling them sexually. The allegation was made in the hearing of several of the plaintiff’s patients in the . .
Appeal from – Nail v Jones, Harper Collins Publications Ltd; Nail v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Wade etc QBD 26-Mar-2004
The claimant was upset by an article published by the defendant making false allegations that he had behaved in a sexually profligate manner many years earlier. When it was substantially repeated he sued.
Held: The words were defamatory. An . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bowman v MGN Ltd QBD 26-Apr-2010
The claimant complained of an article on the defendant’s web-site. The defendant offered an unqualified offer of amends. The court was asked to settle an amount of compensation. Though the article was removed within a few hours and upon receipt of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220494

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 defamatory and untrue. The defendants said that the articles were protected by qualified privilege, since the claimant was a public figure.
Held: The articles were defamatory and an award of andpound;150,000 was made. Context is often crucial in libel proceedings, and associated articles could be used to help discern meanings. ‘ . . here the Defendants were not neutral. They did not merely adopt the allegations. They embraced them with relish and fervour. They then went on to embellish them . .’ The Reynolds defence was not available. The notion of ‘exposure’ plainly connotes, that wrongdoing has taken place. The leaders were defamatory of Mr Galloway and that their ‘sting’ was factual rather than comment. ‘It is the difference between tentative comment and a rush to judgment. ‘ Where a shere it was agreed that it would be the judge who would rule on whether a defendant had a duty to make a report of the allegations, the advice of a jury as to the alleged meanings would not be of assistance.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2786 (QB), Times 13-Jan-2005, [2005] EMLR 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL QBD 20-Jan-2004
It is almost inevitable that in a Reynolds privilege case to be tried by jury there will be presented to them a list of questions, sometimes no doubt formidably long. The object is to enable the judge to have the factual matrix upon which to make . .
Cited – 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 – Lingens v Austria ECHR 8-Jul-1986
Freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, . .
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 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – Branson v Bower (No 1) CA 24-May-2001
The test of whether comment was fair comment is simply that of whether the opinion was honestly expressed, and on the basis of facts accurately stated. There is no special rule for imputations of corruption or dishonest motives. Nor is there any . .
Cited – Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland ECHR 25-Jun-1992
Two newspaper articles reported widespread rumours of brutality by the Reykjavik police. These rumours had some substantiation in fact, a policeman had been convicted recently. The purpose of the articles was to promote an investigation by an . .
Cited – Selisto v Finland ECHR 1-Oct-2004
The applicant wrote articles for a newspaper alleging unprofessional behaviour in an anonymous surgeon, leading to the death of a hospital patient three years earlier. The prosecutor had concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. There was . .
Cited – Thoma v Luxembourg ECHR 29-Mar-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award
The Court was . .
Cited – Affaire Radio France et autres v France ECHR 30-Mar-2004
A person’s right to protect his/her reputation is among the rights guaranteed by ECHR Article 8 as an element of the right to respect for private life. . .
Cited – Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway ECHR 20-May-1999
A newspaper and its editor complained that their right to freedom of expression had been breached when they were found liable in defamation proceedings for statements in articles which they had published about the methods used by seal hunters in the . .
Cited – Prager And Oberschlick v Austria ECHR 26-Apr-1995
Article 10 requires that journalists be permitted a good deal of latitude in how they present their material and that a degree of exaggeration must also be accepted. The media have a special place in any democratic society as purveyor of information . .
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 – Cook v Alexander CA 1974
One may comment upon reports which are themselves the subject of privilege. A report to be fair and accurate must constitute a fair presentation of that which took place on the relevant occasion. It need not be a verbatim report. It can be selective . .
Cited – Brent Walker Group plc v Time Out Limited CA 1991
The defendant published two articles with comment adverse to W. The plaintiff complained that this associated him and his company with violent organised crime. The defence to the defamation action said the words complained of were fair comment, and . .
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 – Heil v Rankin, Rees v Mabco (102) Ltd, Schofield v Saunders and Taylor Ltd and Other cases CA 23-Mar-2000
The Law Commission had recommended that the general level of damages awarded for pain suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury cases should be raised. The Court now considered several cases on the issue.
Held: The court would do so. . .
Cited – John v MGN Ltd CA 12-Dec-1995
Defamation – Large Damages Awards
MGN appealed as to the level of damages awarded against it namely pounds 350,000 damages, comprising pounds 75,000 compensatory damages and pounds 275,000 exemplary damages. The newspaper contended that as a matter of principle there is no scope in . .
Cited – Gleaner Company Ltd and Another v Abrahams PC 14-Jul-2003
Punitive Defamation Damages Order Sustained
(Jamaica) The appellants challenged a substantial award of damages for defamation. They had wrongfully accused a government minister of corruption. There was evidence of substantial financial loss. ‘For nearly sixteen years the defendants, with all . .
Cited – 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 – Lillie and Reed v Newcastle City Council, Barker, Jones, Saradjian, Wardell QBD 30-Jul-2002
The applicants sought judicial review of a report prepared for the respondent. They had been accused of child abuse whilst working as nursery assistants.
Held: The report was fundamentally flawed, and almost deliberately designed to . .

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

Defamation

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219936

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 a prior restraint on publication unless it is clear that no defence will succeed at the trial. This is partly due to the importance the court attaches to freedom of speech. It is partly because a judge must not usurp the constitutional function of the jury unless he is satisfied that there is no case to go to a jury. The rule is also partly founded on the pragmatic grounds that until there has been disclosure of documents and cross-examination at the trial a court cannot safely proceed on the basis that what the defendants wish to say is not true. And if it is or might be true the court has no business to stop them saying it. ‘
Nothing in section 12(3) of the 1998 Act weakens the force of the rule in Bonnard v Perryman.
As to Human Rights, a person’s right to protect his or her reputation is amongst the rights guaranteed by Art 8. There were two rights in conflict. The court stressed the distinction between a defamation case (where the claimant’s right to a reputation has been put in issue and the issue cannot be effectively resolved before the trial) and a case which raises direct issues of privacy or confidentiality. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke VP, Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1462, Times 10-Nov-2004, [2005] QB 972

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 12(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bonnard v Perryman CA 2-Jan-1891
Although the courts possessed a jurisdiction, ‘in all but exceptional cases’, they should not issue an interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication of a libel which the defence sought to justify except where it was clear that that defence . .
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – Holley, SD and R Trading Limited, Henry Ansbacher and Co Limited, Ansbacher (Jersey) Limited v Smith CA 4-Dec-1997
The motive for a threatened publication, was not relevant, when considering whether to restrain publication beforehand. Sir Christopher Slade said: ‘I accept that the court may be left with a residual discretion to decline to apply the rule in . .
Cited – William Coulson and Sons v James Coulson and Co CA 1887
Lord Esher MR said: ‘It could not be denied that the court had jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction before trial. It was, however, a most delicate jurisdiction to exercise, because, though Fox’s Act only applied to indictments and . .
Cited – Fraser v Evans CA 1969
The law of confidence is based on the moral principles of loyalty and fair dealing. An injunction was sought to restrain an intended publication: ‘The court will not restrain the publication of an article, even though it is defamatory, when the . .
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.
Cited – Herbage v Pressdram Ltd CA 1984
There was a publication of articles which referred to convictions which were spent under the 1974 Act. The court restated the principle in Bonnard v Perryman: ‘These principles have evolved because of the value the court has placed on freedom of . .
Cited – Herbage v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 30-Apr-1981
The principles in American Cyanamid did not affect the rule in Bonnard v Perryman. Sir Denys Buckley saiod: ‘the question what meaning the words complained of bore was primarily one for the jury. Suppose the words bore the second meaning alleged and . .
Cited – Polly Peck PLC v Trelford CA 1986
The plaintiffs complained of the whole of one article and parts of two other articles published about them in The Observer. The defamatory sting was that Mr Asil Nadir (the fourth plaintiff) had deceived or negligently misled shareholders, . .
Cited – Khashoggi v IPC Magazines Ltd CA 1986
The plaintiff sought to restrain the publication of an article. The defendants asserted that they would justify what they said at trial by reference to a Polly Peck defence, as to which: ‘I cannot see why the Bonnard v Perryman principle should not . .
Cited – In re F (otherwise A ) (A Minor) (Publication of Information) CA 1977
An allegation of contempt was made in proceedings related to the publication by a newspaper of extracts from a report by a social worker and a report by the Official Solicitor, both prepared after the commencement and for the purpose of the wardship . .
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 – Regina v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis, ex parte Rottman HL 16-May-2002
The defendant had been arrested under an extradition warrant issued under the Act. The police had searched his premises, and found further evidence which was used to support the application for extradition. He challenged the collection and admission . .
Cited – Affaire Radio France et autres v France ECHR 30-Mar-2004
A person’s right to protect his/her reputation is among the rights guaranteed by ECHR Article 8 as an element of the right to respect for private life. . .
Cited – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
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 – Lonhro Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5) CA 6-Oct-1993
The plaintiff sought to amend a conspiracy claim, based on arrangements to publish defamatory statements, by adding a claim for damage to reputation and feelings.
Held: Such a claim could not be made in conspiracy. A Plaintiff’s motives in . .
Cited – Observer and Guardian v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Nov-1991
The newspapers challenged orders preventing their publication of extracts of the ‘Spycatcher’ book.
Held: The dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the court. This is . .
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 by:

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 – Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Apr-2007
The appellant sought to restrict publication by the defendants in the Mail on Sunday of matters which he said were a breach of confidence. He had lied to a court in giving evidence, whilst at the same time being ready to trash the reputation of his . .
Cited – Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd and others v Vetplus Ltd CA 20-Jun-2007
The claimants appealed refusal of an order restricting comparative advertising materials for the defendant’s competing veterinary medicine. The claimant said that the rule against prior restraint applicable to defamation and other tort proceedings . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation v CAFCASS Legal and others FD 30-Mar-2007
Parents of a child had resisted care proceedings, and now wished the BBC to be able to make a TV programme about their case. They applied to the court for the judgment to be released. Applications were also made to have a police officer’s and . .
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 – 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 – 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 . .
Cited – RST v UVW QBD 11-Sep-2009
The applicant sought an interim and without notice injunction preventing the defendant from disclosing confidential information covered by an agreement between the parties.
Held: The order was made on a without notice application because there . .
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, Media, Human Rights

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219207

Best v Charter Medical of England Ltd and Another: CA 26 Oct 2001

The Civil Procedure Rules did not alter the previous practice in defamation actions, that the words to be relied upon should be pleaded in detail, save only in exceptional circumstances. The case had been properly struck out, as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, where the claimant had failed to establish the words used.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Walker, Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

Times 19-Nov-2001, Gazette 06-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1588

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Affirmed – British Data Management Plc v Boxer Commercial Removals Plc and Another CA 28-Feb-1996
A quia timet action in a defamation case must specify the precise words which are expected to be used. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.166718

Vodafone Group Plc v Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd: ChD 1997

The court examined the development of the law in relation to comparative advertising. Jacob J said: ‘Prior to the coming into force of the Trade Marks Act 1994 comparative advertising using a registered trade mark of a competitor was, subject to minor exceptions involving the use of a company name, forbidden by section 4(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1938. But in an increasingly pro-competitive environment there was virtually a moratorium on enforcement of section 4(1) rights in a number of trades – for instance comparative advertising in the field of motor cars was very common for a number of years before the 1938 Act was repealed. The 1994 Act now positively permits fair competitive advertising by section 10(6). This provides:
‘Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall be construed as preventing the use of a registered trade mark by any person for the purpose of identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor or a licensee.
But any such use otherwise than in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters shall be treated as infringing the registered trade mark if the use without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark.’
In this case it is common ground that there is no infringement unless the use of Vodaphone in the comparison falls within the qualification of section 10(6). This qualification was considered by Laddie J in Barclays Bank Plc v. Advanta [1996] RPC 307. He held that it is for the plaintiff to show that the use falls within the qualification and that the test of honesty is objective (ie. would a reasonable reader be likely to say, upon being given the full facts, that the advertisement is not honest?). Laddie J gave as an example the case where the advertisement is ‘significantly misleading’. In trade marks, as [Counsel] rightly submitted, there is no ‘one meaning rule’. If a comparison is significantly misleading on an objective basis to a substantial proportion of the reasonable audience, it is not an ‘honest practice’ within the section.’
‘The meaning of the words concerned is the first matter to be considered, for their truth or falsity is to be tested against that meaning. The meaning is for the court to determine when a judge sits without a jury. Evidence of the meaning to others is inadmissible. The question: ‘is not one of construction in the legal sense. The ordinary man does not live in an ivory tower and he is not inhibited by the rules of construction. So he can and does read between the lines in the light of his general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs . . What the ordinary man would infer without special knowledge has generally been called the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. But that expression is rather misleading in that it conceals the fact that there are two elements in it. Sometimes it is not necessary to go beyond the words themselves, as where the plaintiff has been called a thief or a murderer. But more often the sting is not so much in the words themselves as in what the ordinary man will infer from them, and that is also regarded as part of their natural and ordinary meaning’, per Lord Reid in Lewis v The Daily Telegraph’
Jacob J discussed obiter the application of the ‘one meaning rule’ in malicious falsehood cases: ‘As a comparative stranger to this branch of the law I find the ‘one meaning rule’ strange, particularly for malicious falsehood. Without authority, I should have thought it would be enough to satisfy the criterion of falsity for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant made a statement which was false to a substantial number of people. That, for instance, is the position in passing off (a tort also concerned with false representations): for that tort it is enough to show that the representation fools some of the people, even if not most of them.
The reason for the libel rule in part relates to the entitlement of jury trial for libel (as Diplock L.J. explained in Slim). Save in exceptional circumstances the right to jury trial remains for libel and slander (see section 69(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981) but there is no such right in relation to malicious falsehood. So it by no means follows that that historical reason for the rule in libel should apply to malicious falsehood. Another reason for the rule relates to the function of a jury in awarding damages for defamation: unless one has settled on a particular meaning one cannot judge the extent of the defamation. But in malicious falsehood damages are rather different: they are essentially compensatory for pecuniary loss as for most other torts. So again it does not seem necessarily to follow that the libel rule should apply to the tort. However, as I say, the parties were agreed that I should proceed on the basis that I am a notional jury identifying the single meaning of the words complained of. That is what I will do, and, as will be seen, in this case the point is academic.’
Jacob J looked at the question of meaning in marketing cases: ‘This is a case about advertising. The public are used to the ways of advertisers and expect a certain amount of hyperbole. In particular the public are used to advertisers claiming the good points of a product and ignoring others, . . and the public are reasonably used to comparisons- ‘knocking copy’ as it is called in the advertising world. This is important in considering what the ordinary meaning may be. The test is whether a reasonable man would take the claim being made as one made seriously, the more precise the claim the more it is likely to be so taken- the more general or fuzzy the less so.’

Judges:

Jacob J

Citations:

[1997] FSR 34, [1997] EMLR 84

Statutes:

Trade Marks Act 1994 10(6), Supreme Court Act 1981 69(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v RBS Advanta ChD 8-Feb-1996
A party complaining about the use of a trade mark in a comparative advert is required to show some dishonesty. Section 10(6) of the Act was described as ‘home grown’ rather than derived directly from the Directive. . .

Cited by:

Cited – British Airways Plc v Ryanair Limited ChD 25-Oct-2000
The claimant alleged that disparaging adverts by the defendant infringed its trade marks and amounted to the tort of malicious falsehood.
Held: There was no dispute that the mark had been used. The Act could not be used to prevent any use of . .
Cited – Cable and Wireless plc v British Telecommunications plc ChD 1998
The court set out the applicable legal principles in trade mark infringement. The court considered the elements necessary to establish a defence under s10(6): The primary objective of section 10(6) of the 1996 Act is to permit comparative . .
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 . .
Cited – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd QBD 15-Jul-2009
The claimant said that the defendant’s characterisation of its own products as ‘Good for You’ by reference to a description saying that it did not include the claimant’s product as a component, was a malicious falsehood. The defendant sold other . .
Approved – MacMillan Magazines Ltd v RCN Publishing 1998
Neuberger J approved the statement of Jacob J as to comparative marketing. . .
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.

Intellectual Property, Media, Defamation

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.221000

Pepin v Taylor: CA 10 Oct 2002

The claimant and defendant claimed defamation of each other in cross claims as to postings made on internet newsgroups messages. Mr P said that the defendant had not been identified in the defamation alleged against Mr P. The defendant had been identified by his email address. The claimant appealed against the judgment given dismissing his own claim, and for the defendant.
Held: The judge’s finding stood. The claimant should not be prejudiced, since the same argument might run against him to say that only a few people would make the identification, and that the damages were therefore very limited.
‘This case cried out for case management. The rules allow a judge to do what Gray J did. If the judge thinks there is no real prospect of a claim succeeding, he ought, when exercising his case management powers, to dismiss it summarily: see CPR Part 1.4(2)(c) and paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the Practice Direction to CPR Part 26. In the course of his discussion with Mr Pepin the judge made it clear what it was that he was intending to do and yet Mr Pepin, who is an experienced litigant in person, did not ask for an adjournment or indicate that he found himself in any difficulty in dealing with the points which the judge put to him.’

Judges:

Tuckey, Longmore LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1522

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Penney and Others v East Kent Health Authority CA 16-Nov-1999
A cervical smear screener could be liable in negligence if he failed to spot obvious abnormalities in a test result which indicated that further investigation was required. To say this is not to say that such screening tests were expected to achieve . .

Cited by:

Cited – Clifford Harris and Co v Solland International Ltd and others ChD 3-Nov-2004
The claimant solicitors sought their costs from the defendant former clients. They now applied for orders under section 73 of the 1974 Act to have them settled from the proceeds of their litigation now held by another firm of solicitors now acting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217729

Spencer v Sillitoe and Another: CA 20 May 2002

Application for leave to appeal – summary dismissal of claim of defamation – alleged remarks by co-worker to senior employee. Leave given
A litigant should not be deprived of a hearing merely because the case seems to a judge implausible on paper.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 820

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Spencer v Sillitoe, Fujitsu Services Limited (Formerly ICL) QBD 9-Jul-2003
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Spencer v Sillitoe, Fujitsu Services Limited (Formerly ICL) QBD 9-Jul-2003
. .
See Also – Spencer v Sillitoe and Another CA 22-Oct-2002
Appeal from a decision of Morland J, who granted the defendants summary judgment under Civil Procedure Rule 24(2)(a)(2), finding that the claimant, Mr Spencer, had no real prospect of succeeding on his claim.
Held: Buxton LJ said: ‘Bearing in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217231

Fox v Boulter: QBD 13 Nov 2012

Application by the Defendant for a ruling pursuant to CPR PD53 para 4.1(1) that the words complained of in this libel action are not capable of bearing the meaning attributed to them by the Claimant in his Particulars of Claim, nor any other meaning defamatory of him.

Judges:

Mr Justice Tugendhat

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3183 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.465736

Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corporation v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl: CA 12 Aug 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1305

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At first instance – Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corporation v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl QBD 12-Jun-2003
. .
Appeal from – Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corporation v the Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) QBD 21-Jul-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.216382

Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain (Non Justiciability and Reply): QBD 21 Feb 2019

The defendants argued that the claims against them were non-justiciable, requiring the court to resolve issues of religious faith, doctrine or practice, which are matters which it is not institutionally competent to do.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 344 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain (Relief from Sanctions 1) QBD 21-Feb-2019
Defendants’ application pursuant to CPR 3.9 for relief from sanctions, in respect of their non-compliance within Order. The defendants had made an application raising the question of whether the entirety of these slander claims, or aspects of them, . .
See Also – Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain (Relief from Sanctions 2) QBD 21-Feb-2019
The claimant sought relief from sanctions. He had served statement summaries rather than, as ordered, the statements themselves. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.634251

Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain (Relief from Sanctions 1): QBD 21 Feb 2019

Defendants’ application pursuant to CPR 3.9 for relief from sanctions, in respect of their non-compliance within Order. The defendants had made an application raising the question of whether the entirety of these slander claims, or aspects of them, should be stayed or struck out on the grounds that the issues raised are not justiciable

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 341 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain (Relief from Sanctions 2) QBD 21-Feb-2019
The claimant sought relief from sanctions. He had served statement summaries rather than, as ordered, the statements themselves. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain (Non Justiciability and Reply) QBD 21-Feb-2019
The defendants argued that the claims against them were non-justiciable, requiring the court to resolve issues of religious faith, doctrine or practice, which are matters which it is not institutionally competent to do. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Defamation

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.634250

Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain (Relief from Sanctions 2): QBD 21 Feb 2019

The claimant sought relief from sanctions. He had served statement summaries rather than, as ordered, the statements themselves.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 346 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain (Relief from Sanctions 1) QBD 21-Feb-2019
Defendants’ application pursuant to CPR 3.9 for relief from sanctions, in respect of their non-compliance within Order. The defendants had made an application raising the question of whether the entirety of these slander claims, or aspects of them, . .
See Also – Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain (Non Justiciability and Reply) QBD 21-Feb-2019
The defendants argued that the claims against them were non-justiciable, requiring the court to resolve issues of religious faith, doctrine or practice, which are matters which it is not institutionally competent to do. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Defamation

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.634249

Riddell v Glasgow Corporation: HL 16 Mar 1911

In an action of damages for slander raised by the wife of the tenant of a house in a city, pursuer, against the corporation of the city, defenders, held that a tax-collector whose duties included ‘the collection of the police assessments payable by the pursuer’s husband and the granting of receipts therefor,’ and who consequently had to consider what credits the payer was entitled to, was not acting within the scope of his employment in accusing the pursuer of altering and forging a receipt entitling to a credit, so as to render the corporation, his employers, liable in damages for slander. Per the Lord Chancellor – ‘I do not see that he (the tax-collector) had any authority to express an opinion.’

Citations:

48 SLR 399, [1911] UKHL 399

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Defamation

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.619192

Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers: QBD 19 Feb 2008

Complaint was made that an article was defamatory of the owner of Manchester United. The defendant now argued that the game was not worth the candle. The costs vastly exceeded any possible recovery, and it had openly offered vindication, and that the case had now become an abuse of process and should be stayed. The claimant said that the defendant was not free to assert justification as a defence whilst offering a public apology inconsistent with its statement of truth.
Held: The request failed. There was no difference in principle between an open offer and one made without prejudice save as to costs in this context. A judge should not give permission for a Statement in Open Court to be read if, before the Statement is read, he is informed by one of the parties that that party proposing to join in the making of a statement which he believes to be false. It is one thing for the court to be unable to guarantee that all its judgments or verdicts are the whole truth. It is quite another for the court to permit itself to be used for the making of a statement that the maker is at the same time declaring he believes to be untrue. The court expects an apology to be frank. It does not expect a claimant to accept an apology which is not full and frank, and which the defendant does not believe in.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 278 (QB), [2009] EMLR 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 1-May-2007
. .
See Also – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 9-Jul-2007
The claimant sought to add the name of a further claimant. The defendant objected, saying that it was after the expiry of the limitation period.
Held: The claimant was seeking to use the rules for substitution of parties to add a party. In . .
See Also – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 19-Dec-2007
Applications were launched with in defamation proceedings to seek to recover damages for parties who had not previously been part of the proceedings.
Held: The amendments were refused. The new claimants were now out of time, and it was clear . .
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 – Schellenberg v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2000
The claimant had settled defamation actions against the Guardian and the Sunday Times on disadvantageous terms, when it seemed likely that he was about to lose. He then pressed on with this almost identical action against the BBC.
Held: A . .
Cited – Wallis v Valentine and Others CA 18-Jul-2002
The claimant in a defamation case appealed a decision to strike out his claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process, being intended to act as an harassment of the defendant, or to cause commercial embarrassment or undue cost.
Held: . .
Cited – McDonald Corporation v Steel CA 1995
A defendant may not put on the record a plea of justification unless he believes it to be true: ‘It is true that a pleader must not put a plea of justification (or indeed a plea of fraud) on the record lightly or without careful consideration of the . .
Cited – Cleese v Clark QBD 2003
The court looked at the calculation of damages after an offer of amends under the Act by the defendant.
Held: Such calculations have to be linked to the very different circumstances of each case. Comparisons with awards after jury trial were . .
Cited – Air Canada v Secretary of State for Trade HL 1983
The court considered the test to be applied before a document could be ordered to be discovered.
Held: (Majority) Discovery is an exception to the adversarial character of the legal process. It assists both the parties and the court to . .
Cited – Risk Allah Bey v Johnstone 1868
A court should not allow an apology where the person apologising did not believe in its truth. . .
Cited – Malcolm v Moore 1901
. .
Cited – Charlton v Emap Plc and Others QBD 11-Jun-1993
A defendant offering an explanation as part of a defamation settlement must not detract from the Plaintiff’s vindication. The court rejected the submission of the defendant in a libel action that the claimant should be refused permission to read a . .
Cited – Barnet v Crozier CA 1987
The court considered an application by a third party to proceedings to prevent a statement being read out in open court in defamation proceedings. Justification had originally been pleaded by both defendants but, as part of a settlement with the . .
Cited – Gleaner Company Ltd and Another v Abrahams PC 14-Jul-2003
Punitive Defamation Damages Order Sustained
(Jamaica) The appellants challenged a substantial award of damages for defamation. They had wrongfully accused a government minister of corruption. There was evidence of substantial financial loss. ‘For nearly sixteen years the defendants, with all . .
Cited – Milne v Telegraph Ltd QBD 2001
The defendant requested entry of summary judgment against itself under section 8(3) to limit the maximum damages to andpound;10,000. If it went to trial the defendant might argue qualified privilege. To have jurisdiction it had to appear to the . .

Cited by:

Cited – McLaughlin and Others v Newall QBD 31-Jul-2009
The claimant asked the court to strike out the defence that the claimant had compromised his claim by agreement. The defendant had written letters critical of the claimants who were governors of a school which had disciplined his daughter a teacher . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Defamation

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.278220

Gahir v Bansal: QBD 3 Aug 2016

Libel action arising from two hand-written letters alleged to have been written by the Defendant and sent by him to various members of the Sikh community in the midlands and, in particular, to members of the Gurdwara to which the Claimant and Defendant each belong. The recipients are said to have included among others the Trustees, the Management Committee and the Executive Committee. The defendant denied authorship.

Judges:

Sir David Eady

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2041 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.569078

Barron and Others v Collins: QBD 16 May 2016

The defendant MEP sought an order staying the defamation action brought against her by four MPs from the Rotherham area. She said that as an MEP she had a procedural immunity. She had informed the European Commission that she sought the protection which might be available.
Held: The right approach to the decision in Marra is to treat the term ‘informed’ as requiring a formal communication to the court from the Parliament. There is good reason for that approach, as it gives effect to the underlying principle which is one of co-operation between the Parliament and the national bodies, in their capacities as institutions. Further, this approach allows the Parliament a role in assessing a request for the defence of privilege before it decides to communicate with a national court. The stay should be granted pending the reply of the Parliament, but it would then be for the national court to make the decision.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1166 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Criminal Proceedings Against Zwartveld and Others ECJ 13-Jul-1990
Europa European Communities – Institutions – Obligations – Duty to cooperate with national authorities acting to ensure respect for Community law – Implementation – Disclosure of documents and authorization of . .
Cited – Marra v De Gregorio C-200/07 ECJ 21-Oct-2008
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling European- Parliament – Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament containing insulting remarks Claim for non-pecuniary damages Immunity of Members of the European . .
Cited – Patriciello (Privileges And Immunities) ECJ 9-Jun-2011
ECJ Member of the European Parliament – Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities – Scope of the concept of’opinion expressed in the exercise of parliamentary duties’ – Criminal proceedings for . .
See Also – Barron MP and Others v Collins MEP QBD 29-Apr-2015
Trial of preliminary issues in for defamation. The claimants, MPs for Rotherham areas, said that a speech by the defendant to the UKIP conference and repeated on TV contained assertions defamatory of them.
Held: The words complained of bore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, European, Constitutional

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.564497

Gregson v Channel Four Television Corporation: CA 4 Jul 2002

Whether trial before jury appropriate

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 941

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Gregson v Channel Four Television Corporation CA 11-Jul-2000
It was possible to amend pleadings outside of the limitation period, where the alteration to identify the correct party was genuine and the mistake had not mislead any party. In this case there was no reasonable doubt about who had been intended to . .

Cited by:

See Also – Gregson v Channel Four Television Corporation CA 11-Jul-2000
It was possible to amend pleadings outside of the limitation period, where the alteration to identify the correct party was genuine and the mistake had not mislead any party. In this case there was no reasonable doubt about who had been intended to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.175172

Charakida v Jackson: QBD 9 Apr 2019

Action for damages for libel, and for an injunction to prevent repetition. The claimant is a consultant dermatologist who works in the NHS and privately. The defendant is a former patient.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 858 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.635976

Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers: QBD 1958

The test of whether a comment amounted to fair comment, is whether the opinion, however exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, was honestly held by the person expressing it. Diplock J said: ‘Let us look a little more closely at the way in which the law balances the rights of the public man, on the one hand, and the rights of the public, on the other, in matters of freedom of speech. In the first place, every man, whether he is in public life or not, is entitled not to have lies told about him and by that is meant one is not entitled to make statements of fact about a person which are untrue and which redound to his discredit, that is to say, tend to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking men.
What are the limits of the right of comment? Quite rightly they are very wide. First of all, who is entitled to comment? The answer to that is ‘everyone.’ A newspaper reporter or a newspaper editor has exactly the same rights, neither more nor less, than every other citizen, and the test is no different whether the comment appears in a Sunday newspaper with an enormous circulation, or in a letter from a private person to a friend or, subject to some technical difficulties with which you need not be concerned, is said to an acquaintance in a train or in a public house. So in deciding whether this was fair comment or not, you dismiss from your minds the fact that it was published in a newspaper, and you will not, I am sure, be influenced in any way by any prejudice you may have for or against newspapers any more than you will be influenced in any way by any prejudice which you may have for or against Lord Silkin’s politics . .
I have been referring and Counsel in their speech to you have been referring to fair comment, because that is the technical name which is given to this defence, or, as I would prefer to say, which is given to the right of every citizen to comment on matters of public interest. But the expression ‘fair comment’ is a little misleading. It may give you the impression that you, the jury, have to decide whether you agree with the comment, whether you think it is fair. If that were the question you had to decide, you realise that the limits of freedom which the law allows would be greatly curtailed. People are entitled to hold and to express freely on matters of public interest strong views, views which some of you, or indeed all of you, may think are exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, provided – and this is the important thing – that they are views which they honestly hold. The basis of our public life is that the crank, the enthusiast, may say what he honestly thinks just as much as the reasonable man or woman who sits on a jury, and it would be a sad day for freedom of speech in this country if a jury were to apply the test of whether it agrees with the comment instead of applying the true test: was this an opinion, however exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, which was honestly held by the writer?’

Judges:

Diplock J

Citations:

[1958] 1 WLR 743, [1958] 2 All ER 516

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Keays v Guardian Newspapers Limited, Alton, Sarler QBD 1-Jul-2003
The claimant asserted defamation by the defendant. The parties sought a decision on whether the article at issue was a comment piece, in which case the defendant could plead fair comment, or one asserting fact, in which case that defence would not . .
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 – Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Feb-2006
The defendant sought to defend the claim for defamation by claiming fair comment. The claimant said that the relevant facts were not known to the defendant at the time of the publication.
Held: To claim facts in aid of a defence of fair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.184404

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 be defamatory of a professional person if they impute a lack of knowledge, judgment, efficiency or competence in the conduct of that person’s profession. Lord Denning said that the question that arose was: ‘are these words reasonably capable of being understood as being defamatory of the plaintiff? Understood, that is, by the sort of people likely to read them. These are, I take it, the medical men who read the British Medical Journal’ and ‘words may be defamatory of a trader or business man or professional man, although they do not impute any moral fault or defect of personal character. They [can] be defamatory of him if they impute lack of qualification, knowledge, skill, capacity, judgment or efficiency in the conduct of his trade or business or professional activity.’
A reasonable cause of action, according to Pearson LJ, connotes a cause of action which has some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleading are considered. As long as the statement of claim discloses some cause of action, or raises some question fit to be decided at the trial, the mere fact that the case is weak and is not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. Where a statement of claim is defective only in not containing particulars to which the defendant is entitled, the application should be made for particulars under O 18 r 12 and not for an order to strike out the statement.
Lord Pearson’s said that in principle: ‘Words may be defamatory of a trader or business man or professional man, though they do not impute any moral fault or defect of personal character. They can be defamatory of him if they impute lack of qualification, knowledge, skill, capacity, judgment or efficiency in the conduct of his trade or business or professional activity.’ and
‘ I doubt whether the analogy sought to be drawn in the present case between a trader’s goods and a professional man’s technique is sound. Goods are impersonal and transient. A professional man’s technique is at least relatively permanent, and it belongs to him: it may be considered to be an essential part of his professional activity and of him as a professional man. In the case of a dentist it may be said: if he uses a bad technique he is a bad dentist and person needing dental treatment should not go to him. ‘
Sir Gordon Willmer referred to the importance of considering the person, or class of persons, whose reaction to the publication should be the test of the wrongful character of the words used. His Honour considered that, because the article was of a highly technical nature, dentists were the class of persons whose reaction to the publication was to be considered.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Pearson LJ

Citations:

[1970] 1 WLR 688, [1970] 1 All ER 1094

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 by:

Cited – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Apr-2010
The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .
Cited – Berkoff v Burchill and and Times Newspapers Limited CA 31-Jul-1996
The plaintiff actor said that an article by the defendant labelling him ugly was defamatory. The defendant denied that the words were defamatory.
Held: It is for the jury to decide in what context the words complained of were used and whether . .
Cited – 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

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.408771

Rechem International Ltd v Express Newspapers: CA 19 Jun 1992

Neill LJ said: ‘A balance has to be struck between the legitimate defence of free speech and free comment on the one hand and on the other hand the costs which may be involved if every peripheral issue is examined and debated at the trial.’ and adopted the fourth principle form Polly Peck in these terms: ‘The fourth principle is that the trial of the action should concern itself with the essential issues and the evidence relevant thereto and that public policy and the interest of the parties require that the trial should be kept strictly to the issues necessary for a fair determination of the dispute between the parties.’ and that ‘there had been a great deal of criticism both in appellate courts and more generally about the length of the trial of libel actions and about their expense and complexity. It might well be that in the past insufficient attention had been paid to the importance and relevance of that principle.’

Judges:

Neill LJ

Citations:

Times 19-Jun-1992, [1992] TLR 302

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Polly Peck PLC v Trelford CA 1986
The plaintiffs complained of the whole of one article and parts of two other articles published about them in The Observer. The defamatory sting was that Mr Asil Nadir (the fourth plaintiff) had deceived or negligently misled shareholders, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Guardian News and Media Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2008
The defendant newspaper published articles making allegations as to the use of offshore tax avoidance arrangements. The claimant sought damages also in malicious falsehood. The defendants sought to rely on an offer of amends served only a few . .
Cited – McKeith v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 14-Jun-2005
. .
Cited – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another (No 4) QBD 4-Mar-2009
Orders were sought to strike out part of the defendants defence of justification to an allegation of defamation.
Held: Where there remains the possibility of a jury trial, it becomes especially important to identify the issues the jurors are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.276503

Lyon v The Daily Telegraph Ltd: CA 1943

Scott LJ said: ‘The reason why, once a plea of fair comment is established, there is no libel, is that it is in the public interest to have free discussion of matters of public interest.’ and ‘It [the right of fair comment] is one of the fundamental rights of free speech and writing which are so dear to the British nation, and it is of vital importance to the rule of law on which we depend for our personal freedom that the courts should preserve the right of ‘fair comment’ undiminished and unimpaired.’

Judges:

Scott LJ

Citations:

[1943] KB 746

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Defamation

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.253574

Reavey and others v Century Newspapers Ltd and Another: QBNI 4 May 2001

The plaintiffs sought orders against the defendants and each of them to enable the plaintiffs to sue for defamation or malicious falsehood certain persons whose identities are at present unknown to the plaintiffs but which are allegedly known to the defendants and each of them and who were the source of information relayed by the two defendants in Parliament and under absolute privilege. The plaintiffs aver that the defendants and each of them are, or have been, in possession of certain documents and information which would identify those persons thus enabling the plaintiffs to sue them for defamation.

Citations:

[2001] NIQB 17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202146

Wood v West Midlands Police: QBD 8 Dec 2003

The claimant’s busness partner had been investigated by the police. He claimed in defamation after a senior officer circulated business associates and others informing them of the prosecution and suggesting the partners’s guilt. He said he was defamed by association. The partner was acquitted.
Held: Tudendhat J struck out the defence of qualified privilege as having no real prospect of success because in his judgment there was no lawful justification, still less any duty, on the chief constable to disclose the information that he did in so far as it concerned the claimant.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2971 (QB), [2004] EMLR 17

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 – Clift v Slough Borough Council and Another QBD 6-Jul-2009
The claimant sought damages for defamation. The council had decided that she had threatened a member of staff and notified various people, and entered her name on a violent persons register. She alleged malice, the council pleaded justification and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Police

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201655

Steedman and others v British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 19 Jun 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 984

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Steedman, Clohosy, Smith, Kiernan, Newman, Creevy, Anderson v The British Broadcasting Corporation CA 23-Oct-2001
The claimants had issued defamation proceedings. The defendant said they were out of time, having begun the action more than one year after the alleged publication, but accepted that they had not been prejudiced in their defence. The court refused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201184