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.


Gray J


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




Defamation Act 1952 5


England and Wales


CitedIn 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 . .
CitedNina 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 . .
CitedArmagas 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 AlsoHenry v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 11-Nov-2005
. .
See AlsoHenry 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:

CitedGarrett 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