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: 1999 To: 1999

This page lists 31 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Service Corporation International plc v Channel Four Television [1999] EMLR 83
1999
ChD
Lightman J
Media, Litigation Practice, Defamation
The court considered an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain a broadcast, based on copyright. The defendant argued that this was merely an attempt to circumvent difficulties in a defamation action. Held: Where an interim injunction in defamation would have been refused under the rule in Bonnard, it would be right to refuse such an injunction for parallel jurisdictions (in this case trespass and breach of copyright).
Lightman J said: "The plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to this relief on three grounds and I must consider each in turn. But before I do so I should consider the cause of action which is now disclaimed, and which was the initial basis of complaint, namely defamation. The reason that defamation is not and cannot be invoked is because no interlocutory injunction could be granted on this ground in view of the defendants' plain and obvious intention to plead to any such claim the defence of justification. The invocation of other causes of action is necessary if there is to be any arguable claim to an interlocutory injunction. The rule prohibiting the grant of an injunction where the claim is in defamation does not extend to claims based on other causes of action despite the fact that a claim in defamation might also have been brought, but if the claim based on some other cause of action is in reality a claim brought to protect the plaintiffs' reputation and the reliance on the other cause of action is merely a device to circumvent the rule, the overriding need to protect freedom of speech requires that the same rule be applied: : see Microdata v Rivendale [1992] FSR 681 and Gulf Oil v Page [1987] 1 Ch 327 at 334.
I have great difficulty in seeing the three alternative claims made in this case as other than attempts to circumvent the rule and to seek protection for the plaintiffs' reputation."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Christie v Angus Wilson John McVicar, Alexside Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 552
13 Jan 1999
CA

Defamation, Costs
The second defendant appealed an order that he pay the costs of the claimant in his successful defamation action. The action had been decided by a jury rejecting the assertion that the claimant an athlete had used drugs. Held: There was no justification for a suggestion that nominal damages alone might have been ordered, and therefore no proper challenge to the costs order.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Fressoz and Roire v France; ECHR 21-Jan-1999 - 29183/95; [1999] ECHR 1; (1999) 31 EHRR 28; [1997] ECHR 194

 
 Robson v Sheppard, Bateman; CA 10-Feb-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 752
 
Fergus Mccann v Scottish Media Newspapers Ltd [1999] ScotCS 52; 2000 SLT 256
18 Feb 1999
SCS
Lord MacFadyen
Scotland, Defamation
Three articles which appeared in one edition of a newspaper had to be read together and treated as "constituting a whole" for the purposes of determining meaning, where the first ended with a cross-reference to the second, and the second ended with a cross-reference to the third.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Baigent and others v The British Broadcasting Corporation and Mcculloch and O'Hare Times, 05 May 1999; [1999] ScotCS 57
19 Feb 1999
SCS
TG Coutts QC
Defamation, Scotland, Damages
Where a defendant in a defamation action caused further distress by persisting through pleadings in attempts to establish the truth of matters alleged, that fact would be reflected properly in an increase in damages.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Chohan v Times Newspapers Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 857
25 Feb 1999
CA

Defamation

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Al-Ani v Shubber [1999] EWCA Civ 853; [1999] EWCA Civ 854
25 Feb 1999
CA

Defamation

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Barry v News Group Newspapers Ltd Times, 22 March 1999
22 Mar 1999
OHCS

Defamation
Where a plaintiff priest claims that an allegation that he had spent a night with a woman, claims defamation, and asserts that he has not broken his vows, evidence can be called that that wider assertion is untrue.

 
Gleaves et Al v Insall; Gleaves v Insall Times, 24 March 1999
24 Mar 1999
QBD

Defamation
A person wanting to issue criminal libel proceedings must disclose to a magistrates court the refusal of other justices to agree to issue the summons. A reporter is not himself responsible for publication, and leave is not required to issue against him.
Law of Libel (Amendment) Act 1888 8


 
 Hamilton v Mohammed Al Fayed; CA 26-Mar-1999 - Times, 30 March 1999; Gazette, 12 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1111; [1999] 1 WLR 1569; [1999] EMLR 501

 
 Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited; QBD 26-Mar-1999 - Times, 20 April 1999; Gazette, 07 July 1999; [1999] EWHC QB 244; [1999] 4 All ER 342; [1999] Masons CLR 267; [1999] ITCLR 282; [2001] QB 201; [1999] EMLR 542; [2000] 3 WLR 1020
 
John Witham v Commercial Union Capital Limited and F A G Hoad [1999] EWCA Civ 1121
29 Mar 1999
CA

Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
Steel and Morris v McDonald's Corporation and Mcdonald's Restaurants Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 1144
31 Mar 1999
CA

Defamation
The appellants had lost a substantial defamation claim against them brought by the respondents. They appealed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
David Michael Barnett v City Literary Institute [1999] EWCA Civ 1161
14 Apr 1999
CA

Contract, Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
Burslem v Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary [1999] EWCA Civ 1196
19 Apr 1999
CA

Defamation

[ Bailii ]

 
 Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited (2); QBD 23-Apr-1999 - 1998-G-No 30; [1999] EWHC QB 240; [1999] 4 All ER 342; [1999] Masons CLR 267; [1999] ITCLR 282; [2001] QB 201; [1999] EMLR 542; [2000] 3 WLR 1020
 
Steel and Morris v McDonald's Corporation and Mcdonald's Restaurants Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 1319
30 Apr 1999
CA

Defamation, Costs
The respondents had achieved a substantial damages award against the appellants. The appellants said they had achieved success on two points and sought an order in their favour for the costs of those elements. Held: "The appellants have no order for costs against them and it is impossible in our view for them now to seek an order for costs in their favour when the most they could have hoped for, by reason of their partial success on this appeal, was the reduction of the order for costs against them by way of a proportional reduction. "
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Craig Osborne v Patricia Leighton [1999] EWCA Civ 1314
30 Apr 1999
CA

Defamation, Litigation Practice
The defendant being late in filing a defence to the claim for defamation, the claimant entered judgment in default. The defendant sought to have that set aside, and now sought her (substantial) costs. Held: The entry of judgment had been at fault, since the claim had also included a request for an injunction. Even had it not been it was inevitable that it would be set aside, and the order for costs on an indemnity basis was upheld.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Chadha and Osicom Technologies Inc v Dow Jones and Co Inc Times, 18 May 1999; Gazette, 09 June 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1415; [2000] 1 WLR 1004
14 May 1999
CA
Roch LJ Otton Pill LJJ
Defamation, Jurisdiction
All the parties were resident in the United States. The alleged libel consisted in an article published in an American magazine. The total sales of the edition in question were 294,346 of which 283,520 were sold in the United States, 408 were sent to subscribers in the United Kingdom and 849 were sold at news stands here. Where a libel had been published abroad, a plaintiff had a duty first to show that there was a sufficient publication here, and where both plaintiff and defendant are non-resident, he must also show a reputation here capable of being damaged, before being given leave to issue and serve out of the jurisdiction. Returning to the judgment of Popplewell J he said: 'This being a case where both plaintiff and defendant are outside the jurisdiction I am wholly unpersuaded that there is any presumption in favour of the plaintiff or that the authorities as to where a cause of action arises are of any assistance in the instant case.' In my judgment there is nothing objectionable in that way of stating the law in this particular case. Here the appellants and the respondents were and are outside the jurisdiction and consequently it was for the appellants to show that they had sufficient connections with this country and a reputation to protect in this country."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bonnie Louise Woods v Sheila Chalfee Graeme Wilson Cathy Sproule Church of Scientology Religious Education College Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 1414; [1999] EWCA Civ 1522
14 May 1999
CA

Defamation

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (2) Times, 26 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1464; [1999] 3 All ER 775; [1999] CPLR 533; [1999] EMLR 751
26 May 1999
CA
Lord Woolf MR
Defamation, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be otiose. In the modern era of witness statements, extensive and fully particularised pleadings are no longer as necessary as they used to be, so long as they still identify the issues, the extent of the dispute between the parties and the general nature of the case of the pleader.
Lord Woolf MR said: "The need for extensive pleadings including particulars should be reduced by the requirement that witness statements are now exchanged. In the majority of proceedings identification of the documents upon which a party relies, together with copies of that party's witness statements, will make the detail of the nature of the case the other side has to meet obvious. This reduces the need for particulars in order to avoid being taken by surprise. This does not mean that pleadings are now superfluous. Pleadings are still required to mark out the parameters of the case that is being advanced by each party. In particular they are still critical to identify the issues and the extent of the dispute between the parties. What is important is that the pleadings should make clear the general nature of the case of the pleader. This is true both under the old rules and the new rules. The Practice Direction to CPR 16, paragraph 9.3 requires, in defamation proceedings, the facts on which a defendant relies to be given. No more than a concise statement of those facts is required.
As well as their expense, excessive particulars can achieve directly the opposite result from that which is intended. They can obscure the issues rather than providing clarification. In addition, after disclosure and the exchange of witness statements pleadings frequently become of only historic interest."
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dr Akena Adoko v Hussein Jemal Times, 08 July 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1643
22 Jun 1999
CA

Defamation, Jury, Litigation Practice
Where a notice of appeal had been lodged, which was intended to be against the order of one judge, but was in terms identifying a different court, and ample opportunity had been given to amend it after the mistake had been pointed out, the Court of Appeal would not allow an amendment at the hearing. Much court time had been wasted because papers were not in order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Goodacre v Bates etc [1999] EWCA Civ 1724
1 Jul 1999
CA

Defamation, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Abdul Matin v Sandra Briggs-Watson [1999] EWCA Civ 1757; [1999] EWCA Civ 1840
5 Jul 1999
CA

Legal Professions, Defamation

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Guy Snowden v Richard Branson [1999] EWCA Civ 1777
6 Jul 1999
CA

Defamation

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Grobbelaar v Sun Newspapers Ltd Times, 12 August 1999
9 Jul 1999
CA
Potter LJ
Defamation, Evidence
With the new Civil Procedure Rules, it was no longer correct that a court could not exclude evidence which was relevant, on the grounds that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The court now has full power and discretion to make such orders. "The just resolution of this case depends on the jury keeping their focus on match-fixing and not being distracted by matters that are insufficiently probative, given their potential for prejudice."
Civil Procedure Rules 32
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others; HL 28-Oct-1999 - Times, 29 October 1999; Gazette, 25 November 1999; Gazette, 17 November 1999; [2001] 2 AC 127; [1999] UKHL 45; [1999] 4 All ER 609; [1999] 3 WLR 1010; [2000] EMLR 1; [2000] HRLR 134; 7 BHRC 289
 
Lange v Atkinson and Another Appeal No 71 1998; [1999] UKPC 46; Appeal No 71 1998
28 Oct 1999
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Commonwealth, Defamation
PC New Zealand - This appeal concerns a defence of "political expression" pleaded in a libel action.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Mahon v Rahn and others (No 2); CA 8-Nov-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 3017; [2000] 1 WLR 2150

 
 Nilsen and Johnsen v Norway; ECHR 25-Nov-1999 - 23118/93; (1999) 30 EHRR 878; [1999] ECHR 134
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.