The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in a referral letter sent to a third party. She had been dismissed from a non-teaching post after having been found using school computers to access pornography. The letter had reported the findings to the third party a ‘relevant employer’ under the Regulations. The letter had suggested misbehaviour in harassment going beyond that alleged. The defendant pleaded qualified privilege, but the claimant pleaded malice.
Held: It would be wrong to strike out the defence since the complaint had been raised by a female muslim worker who well might claim the display of the images was harassment. The judge raised the suggestion that no additional damage may have been caused to the claimant by the extension.
As to malice, Eady J said: ‘as a matter of pleading practice, that allegations of malice must go beyond that which is equivocal or merely neutral. There must be something from which a jury, ultimately, could rationally infer malice; in the sense that the relevant person was either dishonest in making the defamatory communication or had a dominant motive to injure the claimant. Mere assertion will not do.’ Here the facts if anything pointed away from malice rather than toward it.
In addition the defendant may be able to run an argument that per Jameel, the game is not worth the candle and the claim an abuse.
Eady J
[2010] EWHC 1651 (QB)
Bailii
Education (Prohibition from Teaching or Working with Children) Regulations 2003, Defamation Act 1996 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Telnikoff v Matusevitch HL 14-Nov-1991
The court should decide on whether an article is ‘fact or comment’ purely by reference to the article itself, and not taking into account any of the earlier background coverage. It is the obligation of the relevant commentator to make clear that the . .
Cited – 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 – 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: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.420225
