Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Defamation - From: 1991 To: 1991

This page lists 8 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Femis Bank v Lazard [1991] Ch. 391
1991

Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C
Defamation, Litigation Practice, Torts - Other
Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said: "However, in this case the plaintiffs rely on the decision . . in Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd v. Page . . which shows that, where the cause of action is founded on conspiracy to injure, the court can grant an injunction restraining publication.
It is the plaintiffs' case here that they have an arguable case that the sole or paramount intention of Mr. Lazar and Cityguide operating in concert is to injure the plaintiffs . .
However, on the other side I must take account of the fact of the intemperate language such as I have quoted, the element of witchhunt which comes into the matter, the extreme broadcasting of these allegations. The manifest dislike which Mr. Lazar entertains for Mr. Singh may well have come – although of course I cannot tell at this stage – from a position which seems to have emerged towards the end of 1989 in which Mr.Lazar or those associated with him appear to have wished to obtain either a stake in or control of Femis. There are documents showing Mr.Lazar holding himself out as being in that position. Mr Singh in fact obtained control. In addition the unhappy episode in which Mr. Singh covertly joined Femis at a time when he was still ostensibly acting for Cityguide cannot have improved relations.
There are therefore substantial grounds on which it can be argued that there was a major malicious motive in Mr. Lazar's conduct. Though I have substantial doubts whether at trial the plaintiffs will establish that the sole or paramount purpose of what Mr Lazar did was simply to injure without lawful justification, I marginally reach the view that there is an arguable case on the point".
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others [1992] QB 770; [1991] 4 All ER 795
1991
QBD
Morland J
Defamation, Local Government
The defendant published articles suggesting links between the Council and certain businessmen. The Council sued in defamation. The defendant argued that a local authority should not be able to sue for defamation. Held: Applying South Hetton, an authority could sue.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Brent Walker Group plc v Time Out Limited [1991] 2 QB 33; [1991] 2 WLR 772
1991
CA
Parker LJ, Bingham LJ
Defamation
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 derived from the trial of the plaintiff for theft. Held: To sustain the defence of fair comment by showing that the allegations were based upon unproven statements made in a previously privileged occasion, a defendant publisher had to meet an additional requirement that his report was a fair and accurate of the proceedings. The paragraphs complained of were struck out.
Parker LJ commented on the absurdity of the "tangled web of the law of defamation".
Bingham LJ held that fairness to the subject of a defamatory comment based on a privileged statement required that the commentator should at least base his comment on a fair and accurate account of the occasion on which the statement was made, summarising the law of fair comment: "The civil law of libel is primarily concerned to provide redress for those who are the subject of false and defamatory factual publications. Thus in the simplest case A will be entitled to relief against B if B publishes a defamatory factual statement concerning A which B cannot show to be true. The law is not primarily concerned to provide redress for those who are the subject of disparaging expressions of opinion, and freedom of opinion is (subject to necessary restrictions) a basic democratic right. It is, however, plain that certain statements which might on their face appear to be expressions of opinion (as where, for example, a person is described as untrustworthy, unprincipled, lascivious or cruel) contain within themselves defamatory suggestions of a factual nature. Thus the law has developed the rule already mentioned that comment may only be defended as fair if it is comment on facts (meaning true facts) stated or sufficiently indicated. Failing that, the comment itself must be justified."
1 Citers


 
Kingshott v Kent Newspapers Limited [1991] 1 QB 88
1991

Bingham LJ
Defamation
A question arose under the section as to whether a news piece was a fair and accurate report of proceedings at a local public enquiry. The judge had ruled that no reasonable jury properly directed could conclude that the words complained of were other than a fair and accurate report of the proceedings. Held: This had been the correct test, but the court was not persuaded that the jury could not attach decisive weight to any of the plaintiff's points or to those points cumulatively. The question was whether, if the issue were left to the jury and the jury found for the plaintiffs, that verdict would be set aside as perverse. He did not think it would.
Defamation Act 1952 7
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sutcliffe v Pressdram Ltd [1991] 1 QB 153
1991
CA
Lord Donaldson MR
Defamation, Damages
A £600,000 compensatory award was set aside by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it must have been made on the wrong basis, almost certainly so as to punish Private Eye. The Court of Appeal could not substitute its own award for that of a jury. Juries in defamation cases should be reminded of the purchasing power of money when advised on the level of an award. A jury could be guided "in terms which will assist them to appreciate the real value of large sums . . the Judge could, I think, properly invite them to consider what the result would be in terms of weekly, monthly or annual income if the money were invested in a building society deposit account without touching the capital sum awarded or, if they have in mind smaller sums, to consider what they could buy with it."
1 Citers



 
 Telnikoff v Matusevitch; CA 1991 - [1991] 1 QB 102
 
Telnikoff v Matusevich [1991] UKHL 16; [1992] 2 AC 343; [1991] 4 All ER 817; [1991] 3 WLR 952
14 Nov 1991
HL
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
Defamation
Lord Ackner said: "To say that 'A is a disgrace to human nature' is an allegation of fact, but if the words were 'A murdered his father and is therefore a disgrace to human nature', the latter words are plainly a comment on the former."
Lord Keith said: "In my opinion the letter must be considered on its own. The readers of the letter must have included a substantial number of persons who had not read the article or who, if they had read it, did not have its terms fully in mind."
"the question whether words are facts or comment, is in the first instance for the judge: if he is satisfied that they must fall into one of the categories he should so rule. If a defamatory allegation is to be defended as fair comment it must be recognisable by the ordinary, reasonable reader as comment and the key to this is whether it is supported by facts, stated or indicated, upon which, as comment, it may be based."
[ Bailii ]

 
 Telnikoff v Matusevitch; HL 14-Nov-1991 - [1992] 2 AC 343; [1992] UKHL 2
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.