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: 1992 To: 1992
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others [1992] 1 QB 770
19 Apr 1992
CA
Balcombe LJ, Butler-Sloss LJ
Human Rights, Defamation, Media
In two issues of 'The Sunday Times' newspaper on 17 and 24 September 1989 there appeared articles concerning share deals involving the superannuation fund of the Derbyshire County Council. The articles in the issue of 17 September were headed 'Revealed: Socialist tycoons's deals with a Labour chief and 'Bizarre deals of a council leader and the media tycoon': that in the issue of 24 September was headed 'Council share deals under scrutiny.' The council leader was Mr David Melvyn Bookbinder; the 'media tycoon' was Mr Owen Oyston. The articles questioned the propriety of investments made by the council of moneys in its superannuation fund, with Mr. Bookbinder as the prime mover, in three deals with Mr. Oyston or companies controlled by him. Excerpts from the articles giving the flavour of the allegations made will be found in the judgment at first instance [1991] 4 All E.R. 795 to which those interested may refer. The council is the 'administering authority' of its superannuation fund under the Superannuation Act 1972 and the Local Government Superannuation Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986 No. 24) made thereunder." Held: The Court addressed Article 10 in determining whether or not it was necessary and proportionate to allow a local authority the right to sue in defamation for the protection of its own reputation, as opposed to the recognised rights of individual councillors or officers to sue in a personal capacity. Regard should be had to the Convention in resolving uncertainty in the common law, and in determining how it should develop.
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Cites
1 Citers
Jayaretnam v Mahood and Others Times, 21 May 1992
21 May 1992
Brooke J
Defamation, International
The court set aside an order which had granted leave to serve libel proceedings outside the jurisdiction on the ground that the court was precluded by principles of judicial restraint from embarking on an enquiry into the plaintiff's grounds for fearing that he would not receive justice in Singapore. Such an order would be a potential embarrassment for this country's foreign relations with Singapore.
1 Citers
Rechem International Ltd v Express Newspapers Times, 19 June 1992; [1992] TLR 302
19 Jun 1992
CA
Neill LJ
Defamation
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."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843; 13778/88; [1992] ECHR 51
25 Jun 1992
ECHR
Human Rights, Defamation
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 independent body. Held: "freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society". Although the articles were framed in particularly strong terms, they bore on a matter of serious public concern. The factual elements in the relevant articles consisted essentially of references to "stories" or "rumours", emanating from persons other than the applicant, or "public opinion" involving allegations of police brutality, and it was unreasonable to require the writer to prove that unspecified members of the Reykjavik police force had committed acts of serious assault resulting in disablement.
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Joyce v Sengupta and Another; CA 31-Jul-1992 - Gazette, 28 October 1992; [1993] 1 WLR 337; [1992] EWCA Civ 9; [1993] 1 All ER 897
Purdew and Another v Seress-Smith Gazette, 23 September 1992
23 Sep 1992
QBD
Defamation
Replies given to a Social Security adjudication officer were administrative in nature, not judicial, and no absolute privilege applied.
Regina v Bromell Gazette, 30 September 1992
30 Sep 1992
CA
Defamation
Application allowed before criminal court for discovery of complaints documents.
Gorman v Mudd; CA 15-Oct-1992 - Unreported, 15 October 1992
Roache v News Group Newspapers Ltd Independent, 31 December 1992
23 Nov 1992
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Stuart-Smith LJ
Defamation, Costs
In his libel action the plaintiff was awarded £50,000 damages. The same sum had been paid into court, but he obtained additionally an injunction against further publication of the libel and on that account was awarded his costs by the judge below. The court was asked what costs order should be made after acceptance of a payment into court. Held: The judge must look closely at the facts of the particular case before him and ask: who, as a matter of substance and reality, has won? Has the plaintiff won anything of value which he could not have won without fighting the action through to a finish? Has the defendant substantially denied the plaintiff the prize which the plaintiff fought the action to win? The real question which the judge should have asked was: Why did the plaintiff go on to trial and not accept the money in court: Or, was it a significant factor in the plaintiff's decision not to accept the payment in but instead to proceed to trial that he was concerned to obtain an injunction which he reasonably believed he could not otherwise have got? The power to make a payment into court is a most useful weapon in the hands of a defendant faced with a greedy plaintiff making unreasonable demands for damages, but it will be completely blunted if, having failed to beat the payment into court, the plaintiff can say, 'Oh well, I'm entitled to an injunction, the defendant didn't offer me that and I have had to come to court to get it so I'm entitled to my costs.' Where there is a substantial payment into court which the plaintiff fails to beat, it cannot be right that, because the defendant omits to make a ritualistic offer of an undertaking not to repeat the libel, he has to pay all the costs after payment in.
1 Citers
