The court was asked to rule on two remaining pre-trial issues in this defamation claim. ‘namely, (1) an issue of meaning and (2) questions on the admissibility and relevance of eleven witness statements served on the Claimants’ behalf, and accompanied by Civil Evidence Act notices in May of this year.’
Judges:
Eady J
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 2322 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 1) CA 26-Nov-2003
The court considered the levels of meaning in an article falsely connecting the claimant with terrorist activity: ‘Once it is recognised that the article may be asserting no more than that in one way or another the respondents may unwittingly have . .
See Also – Jameel and Another v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl QBD 5-Dec-2003
The defendant sought an order dismissing the defamation claim brought against it, saying that the rule that a defamation claim might be brought without proof of damage to reputation could not survive the introduction of the 1998 Act. . .
See Also – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL QBD 20-Jan-2004
It is almost inevitable that in a Reynolds privilege case to be tried by jury there will be presented to them a list of questions, sometimes no doubt formidably long. The object is to enable the judge to have the factual matrix upon which to make . .
See Also – Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.441428