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: 1993 To: 1993

This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.


 
 Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others; CA 1993 - [1993] 2 All ER 273; [1993] IRLR 122; [1993] ICR 412
 
S and M v United Kingdom (1993) 18 EHRR CD 172
1993
ECHR

Human Rights, Defamation
The defendants to an action in defamation by McDonalds, who were acting in person, sought to make a complaint to the Strasbourg Court that the proceedings infringed their Article 10 rights of freedom of expression. One ground was that the law of the United Kingdom did not place 'restrictions on damages' which might be awarded. Held: The complaint was 'manifestly ill-founded': "… the freedom conferred by Article 10 of the Convention is not of an absolute, unfettered nature. It does not authorise the publication of defamatory material. On the contrary, the second paragraph of Article 10 offers specific protection for the "reputation or rights of others". McDonalds are, therefore, entitled to seek the determination of their civil rights to a good reputation and, if successful, the protection of that reputation against an alleged libel. Similarly the applicants are entitled to defend themselves against McDonald's writ in the determination of their civil right to free speech and fair comment in matters of public interest. . . . The Commission does not find that the matters which may involve the responsibility of the respondent Government under the Convention, namely a lack of legal aid, simplified procedures or restrictions on damages, essentially interfere with the applicants' freedom of expression. They have published their views, upon which there was no prior restraint, and, if those views are subsequently found to be libellous, any ensuing sanctions would in principle be justified for the protection of the reputation and rights, within the meaning of Article 10(2) of the Convention."
1 Citers


 
Ex parte Coventry Newspapers Ltd [1993] QB 278; [1993] 1 All ER 86; [1992] 3 WLR 916
1993
CA
Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ
Defamation, Police, Information
Documents had been disclosed by the Police Complaints Authority under court order for an appeal against conviction. They related to an investigation of the conduct of police officers who had given evidence against the appellant. The newspaper, now being sued for libel by the same police officers, applied for the accused to be given leave to allow it to use the documents in its defence, on the basis that there was an implied undertaking which it was necessary to vary. Held: The court acceded to the newspaper's application. The interests of justice required the undertaking to be varied so as to allow the appellant in the criminal proceedings to hand over the documents to the newspaper upon its undertaking to use them only for the purposes of its defence. It was unnecessary to call those in whom the confidence inhered to consent to the disclosures.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ said: "But for such proposed order the appellant would clearly be unable to hand over the documents: he would be subject to an implied undertaking, analogous to that arising on discovery in civil proceedings, not to use the disclosed documents otherwise than for the purposes for which discovery was given, here the pursuance of the criminal appeal, which is now, of course, successfully concluded." and
"We summarise our reasoning thus. Given the central objective of this category of public interest immunity as "the maintenance of an honourable, disciplined, law-abiding and uncorrupt police force," given the grave public disquiet understandably aroused by proven malpractice on the part of some at least of those who served in the now disbanded West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, given the extensive publicity already attaching to the documents here in question following the appellant's successful appeal, it seems to us nothing short of absurd to suppose that those who co-operated in this investigation - largely other police officers and court officials - will regret that co-operation, or that future generations of potential witnesses will withhold it, were this court now to release the documents to [the newspaper] to enable them to defeat if they can an allegedly corrupt claim in damages."
1 Citers


 
Evans v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd [1993] ACTSC 7
12 Feb 1993

Higgins J
Commonwealth, Defamation
(Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory) It was not defamatory to say of a career civil servant that his career had been aided by patronage of senior politicians, since it did not impute any active or improper seeking of favours on the plaintiff's part: The question is, however, whether to say of a person that he has been the beneficiary of such a system, with the capacity to be used to favour the less well qualified candidates, defames the candidate . . In Renouf [(1977) 17 ACTR 35] (supra), Blackburn CJ accepted that it was defamatory of a senior public servant . . 'to say that he publicly demonstrated his sympathy with a political party with a view to receiving a higher appointment from the Government formed by that party'. . That imputation was accepted as defamatory by reason of the implication that the plaintiff had attempted to openly demonstrate his political acceptability to the Government. That allegation assumed, of course, that the Government in question made such appointments on the ground of political acceptability . . In the present case, the article depicts the plaintiff as a favoured recipient of preferment. It is not suggested he improperly sought it, as was the defamatory allegation in Fairbairn v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1977) 21 ACTR 1 . . The article did not over-state the role of the Prime Minister in the plaintiff's career advancement, but it did not impute any unfair or improper conuct to him nor suggest he did not merit such advancement. It did not convey the imputation pleaded. That would require the article to assert that the plaintiff's qualifications and experience were less important than the favour of the Pdrime Minister. It clearly does not do that."
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]

 
 Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others; HL 18-Feb-1993 - Gazette, 07 April 1993; [1993] AC 534; [1993] UKHL 18; [1992] UKHL 6; [1992] QB 770; [1992] 3 WLR 28; [1993] 1 All ER 1011

 
 Fraser v Mirza; HL 29-Mar-1993 - Ind Summary, 29 March 1993; [1993] SC (HL) 27; [1993] UKHL 14; 1993 SLT 527

 
 Skuse v Granada Television; CA 30-Mar-1993 - Independent, 02 April 1993; [1996] EMLR 278; [1993] EWCA Civ 34

 
 Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and Others; CA 1-Apr-1993 - Times, 06 April 1993; Independent, 01 April 1993; [1994] QB 670; [1993] 4 All ER 975; [1993] EWCA Civ 16
 
Charlton v Emap Plc and Others Times, 11 June 1993
11 Jun 1993
QBD
HHJ Previt
Defamation
A defendant offering an explanation as part of a defamation settlement must not detract from the Plaintiff's vindication. The court rejected the submission of the defendant in a libel action that the claimant should be refused permission to read a Statement of Open Court in the form for which the claimant sought permission. The defendant did not oppose the claimant's application for permission to make a statement at all. The ground of its opposition was that the claimant should have included in the statement and explanation of the defendant's reasons for paying money into court. The defendant had explained that this was "entirely for commercial reasons and does not reflect our view of the strength of [the defendant]'s case on the merits." There was a plea of justification. The judge held that in the circumstances of that case the claimant was entitled to a statement which wholly vindicated and exonerated her.
1 Citers



 
 Lonrho Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5); CA 27-Jul-1993 - Times, 27 July 1993; [1993] 1 WLR 1489 (abbreviated); [1994] 1 All ER 188

 
 Lonhro Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5); CA 6-Oct-1993 - Gazette, 06 October 1993; Gazette, 29 September 1993; [1993] 1 WLR 1489

 
 Grovit and Another v Doctor and Others; CA 28-Oct-1993 - Ind Summary, 13 December 1993
 
McCarthy Stone plc and others v The Daily Telegraph Unreported, 11 November 1993
11 Nov 1993
CA
Rose LJ, Hoffmann LJ
Defamation, Damages
Counsel had wished to open his case to the jury with a reference to the fall of £10m in the plaintiff company's market capitalisation which occurred because of the defendant's article complained of. It was said that the fall in the share price was admissible evidence as one indicator of the effect of the article on the goodwill of the company. The Court decided that evidence of the share price movement should be excluded, because no notice had been given that the point was intended to be relied on, and there was to be no evidence as to causation: the jury were simply being asked by to infer causation from the fact of the fall that occurred after the publication. Held: Rose LJ: 'With regard to the evidence of share price, I am prepared to accept that this may be relevant to goodwill as well as to special damages, as Lord Williams submits, and that so far as it is relevant to good will rather than special damage, it does not have to be pleaded'.
1 Citers



 
 Watts v Aldington, Tolstoy v Aldington; CA 15-Dec-1993 - Times, 16 December 1993; Independent, 25 January 1994; CA Transcript 1578 of 1993; [1999] LTR 578
 
Houston v Smith Unreported, 16 December 1993
16 Dec 1993
CA
Hirst LJ
Defamation, Damages
Doctors operated within the same building. The defendant falsely accused the plaintiff of harassing her and her staff, groping them and fondling them sexually. The allegation was made in the hearing of several of the plaintiff’s patients in the doctors’ joint waiting room. The defendant denied having suggested impropriety with her staff but sought to justify her allegation of personal harassment, alleging that the plaintiff had brushed up against her deliberately. The allegation of sexual harassment was plainly a matter of the utmost gravity for a general practitioner, there were aggravating features and there had been no apology. The publication, however, had been only to a very small number of people. The Court of Appeal reduced the jury’s award of £150,000 to £50,000. If a prompt apology had been published the appropriate award would have been a very small fraction that sum.
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.