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: 1994 To: 1994

This page lists 16 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Underwager v Salter 22 Fed 3d 730 (1994); [1994] USCA7 471; 22 Media L Rep 1852
1994

Judge Easterbrook
International, Defamation
(United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit) Judge Easterbrook spoke of a defamation claim in a scientific dispute: "[Plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying 'character assassination!', silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs' interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. . More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models - not larger awards of damages - mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us."
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ]
 
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited v Wright [1994] 3 SLR 760
1994

Chao Hick Tin J
Commonwealth, Defamation
The Business Times in Singapore had published an apology in favour of a third party in respect of defamatory statements made by Mr Wright whose letter was previously published by the newspaper. The letter was found to be privileged when the letter writer alleged that the apology was defamatory of him. Held: The Business Times had a moral, if not legal duty, to correct the original defamatory statements of the letter writer and its readers would be interested in knowing about the correction.
Chao Hick Tin J said (obiter): "In the circumstances of the present case, having regard to the letter of Mr Wright which was published in the BT (Business Times) . . there was clearly a duty, at least moral if not legal, for BT to make the statement in the apology to correct what it felt was an unwarranted attack by Wright on OCBC. Applying the criteria I have set out above, I am of the opinion that the publication of the apology was on an occasion of qualified privilege. The readers have read the attack on OCBC and they certainly have an interest to read the correction. Of course the defence of qualified privilege could be negatived by malice, but by no stretch of the imagination can one seriously allege there was any malice in OCBC causing the publication of or in BT having published the apology.
I agree that the position might be different if BT, having entirely on its own volition published a libel on OCBC, then sought to make a correction wherein it defamed a third party. I can see that in such a situation the court should perhaps be slow to recognise that there is such a duty as to create an occasion of qualified privilege."
1 Citers



 
 Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd; CA 12-Jan-1994 - Independent, 14 January 1994; Times, 12 January 1994
 
Fraser-Armstrong v Hadow and Others Times, 21 January 1994
21 Jan 1994
CA

Defamation
Improper to attempt to use qualified privilege against justifiable attack.

 
Foxen v Scotsman Publications Ltd and Another Ind Summary, 28 March 1994; Times, 17 February 1994
17 Feb 1994
QBD

Jurisdiction, Defamation, Litigation Practice
A transfer for forum conveniens reasons is not possible between jurisdictions within the UK, and an action in England would not be stayed to allow an intended action in Scotland to proceed on that basis.

 
Mitchell v Faber and Faber Unreported, 24 March 1994
24 Mar 1994
CA
Hirst LJ
Defamation
As a matter of principle the question of bane and antidote should necessarily be left to the jury. Hirst LJ said: "So far as the antidote is concerned, it seems to me that only in the clearest of cases would it be proper for a judge to rule that the sting of words, which are ex hypothesi capable of defamatory meaning in themselves, is drawn by the surrounding context so that in the result those words cease to be capable of a defamatory meaning. In my judgment the general, though perhaps not universal rule should be that this is matter for the jury and not for the judge to decide.”

 
Mitchell v Book Sales Ltd Independent, 25 March 1994
25 Mar 1994
CA

Defamation
Jury to decide whether words were racist abuse in the 1960's.

 
McDonalds Corp and Another v Steel and Another [1994] EWCA Civ 41; [1995] EMLR 527; [1995] 3 All ER 615
25 Mar 1994
CA
Neill, Steyn, Peter Gibson LJJ
Defamation
The plaintiff company had sued the defendants in defamation with regard to a leaflet publishd and distributed by them. The defendants argued justification. The defendants appealed against an order striking out parts of their defence, saying that the plea of justification was inufficiently pleaded and supported by evidence. The defendants said that the issue should be decided only after completion of discovery. Held: The defendants' appeal was allowed. The proposed test for supporting evidence for propriety of a plea of justification was not that it was 'clear and sufficient'. This would impose an unrealistic burden on a defendant.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Jackson v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd and Another Times, 29 March 1994
29 Mar 1994
CA

Defamation
A defendant was entitled to a medical examination of the plaintiff where this would be relevant to the issues in a libel action.

 
Bradford Savings and Loan Ltd and Another v Barclays Bank Plc Unreported 30 March 1994
30 Mar 1994
ComC
HHJ Kershaw
Banking, Defamation
cw Banking - breach of contract to make loan - refusal to advance money within the terms of the facility contract - obligation not terminated - remoteness, mitigation and quantum of damages - Banking - returned cheques as defamatory statements

 
McDonald's Corporation v Steel and Another Independent, 22 April 1994; Times, 14 April 1994; [1995] EMLR 527
14 Apr 1994
CA

Defamation
Defence paragraphs alleging justification were to be struck out only in the clearest of cases. One should only plead justification if one has reasonable evidence to support the defence or reasonable grounds for supposing that sufficient evidence will be available at trial.
1 Citers



 
 Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd; PC 27-Jun-1994 - Times, 13 July 1994; Gazette, 26 October 1994; [1995] 1 AC 321; [1994] 3 NZLR 1; [1994] 3 WLR 970
 
Pillai and Another v Sarkar Times, 21 July 1994
21 Jul 1994
QBD

Defamation
In the case of a claim for libel where the principle publication had been in India, the case should be tried there and not in the UK.

 
Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc Times, 09 November 1994
28 Oct 1994
QBD
Jonathan Sumption QC
Defamation
Qualified privilege reporting statutory proceedings stays despite doubts on findings. Jonathan Sumption QC said: "Historically, qualified privilege meant a state of affairs which negatived legal malice and meant that the plaintiff had to prove malice in fact. The classic form of qualified privilege, which depends on a social or moral duty to communicate information and a reciprocal duty or interest in receiving it, was never easy for a newspaper to invoke, because a newspaper necessarily publishes its contents indiscriminately. The courts, however, have always recognised that the reporting of certain matters to the public at large is in the public interest because those matters relate to some aspect of the community's public affairs which it is right should be in the public domain, even if they are defamatory and may be untrue."
Defamation Act 1952 7
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Kiam v Neil and Another Times, 14 December 1994
14 Dec 1994
CA

Defamation
A defendant may not tell the jury of pre-trial offers of settlement from the Plaintiff on damages.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Brady v Express Newspapers Plc Times, 31 December 1994
31 Dec 1994
QBD

Defamation
Malicious falsehood claim fails - complainant not prejudiced in treatment.
Defamation Act 1952 3(1)(a)

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