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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 53 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Branson v Bower [2002] QB 737
2001
QBD
Eady J
Defamation
The objective test for fair comment is whether it would be perverse for a jury to hold that the comments are not such that an honest person could express them in the light of the facts known by the Defendants at the date of publication. Hard-hitting comments may be made on matters of public interest without the author being hobbled by the constraints of conventional good manners, but "it is, at least theoretically, possible that a finding of malice could be made notwithstanding a conclusion that the defendant was speaking honestly on an occasion of qualified privilege."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Milne v Telegraph Ltd; QBD 2001 - [2001] EMLR 760
 
Multigroup Bulgaria Holding AD v Oxford Analytica Ltd [2001] EMLR 737
2001

Eady J
Defamation, Damages
An article defaming an identifiable individual would give rise to a cause of action even where no one reading the article had prior knowledge of the victim. It could not seriously be suggested that "under English law an individual human being has to surmount a preliminary hurdle in order to bring defamation proceedings by showing an established reputation".
1 Citers


 
Irving v Penguin Books Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 114
17 Jan 2001
CA

Defamation, Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal out of time against judgment and a stay of the costs award until the appeal.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers and Another; CA 18-Jan-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1213

 
 Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; CA 18-Jan-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 33; [2001] EMLR 18; [2001] 2 All ER 437
 
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd and others [2001] EWCA Civ 92
23 Jan 2001
CA
Simon Brown, Longmore LJJ
Defamation
The defendants requested that the defamation claim they faced be struck out despite the apparent reasonable possibility of success.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Turkan and Co (A Firm) and Another v Toplum Postasi Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 99
29 Jan 2001
CA
Tuckey LJ
Defamation, Costs
Application for security for costs by the claimants in these proceedings who are respondents to an appeal by the unsuccessful defendants in this libel case.
[ Bailii ]
 
Multigroup Bulgaria Holding Ad v Oxford Analytica Ltd and Others [2001] EWHC 582 (QB)
1 Feb 2001
QBD
Eady J
Defamation

[ Bailii ]

 
 Arab News Network; Soumar Al Assad v Jihad Al Khazen and Al Hayat Publications Limited; CA 2-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 118
 
Arab News Network; Soumar Al Assad v Jihad Al Khazen and Al Hayat Publications Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 1229
2 Feb 2001
CA

Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
Jerusalem v Austria 26958/95; 37 EHRR 25; [2001] ECHR 122; (2003) 37 EHRR 25
27 Feb 2001
ECHR

Human Rights, Defamation
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
Politicians "… inevitably and knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of word and deed by both journalists and the public at large". Nevertheless, private individuals too will lay themselves open to such scrutiny if they voluntarily enter the arena of public debate, and then need to show "… a higher degree of tolerance to criticism when opponents consider their aims and means employed in that debate".
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Neil v Stephenson and others [2001] EWCA Civ 627
2 Mar 2001
CA

Defamation

[ Bailii ]

 
 Berezovsky v Michaels and Another; CA 6-Mar-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 409
 
Entienne Pty Ltd v Festival City Broadcasters [2001] SASC 60
8 Mar 2001

Olsson, Duggan & Williams JJ
Commonwealth, defamation
Austlii (Supreme Court of South Australia) CRIMINAL -- DRUG TRADING Appeal against dismissal of appellant's claim against the respondent for damages for alleged defamation - appellant was the owner of a business known as "Flash Gelataria" on Hindley Street, with a lane adjacent to it - appellant called "Mr Flash", "The Flashman" or variations of these titles - claim based upon phrase "Mate, just go over in the lane and ask for the flashman and he'll fix you right up", spoken by a fictitious character named "Keefy" during a breakfast radio session - evidence indicated that, at the relevant time, there had been considerable media publicity to suggest that illegal drug dealing did in fact occur in Hindley Street - witnesses called to establish fact that either they heard some or all of the broadcast and took it as a suggestion that the appellant was involved in selling drugs from his premises; or heard other persons discussing the broadcast and placing that interpretation on it. Whether words, having regard to their language and context, could be regarded in law as capable of referring to the appellant - whether the learned trial judge erred in law in finding that the words complained of were not defamatory - whether the learned trial judge erred in finding that the ordinary and reasonable listener would have been fully aware that the whole programme intended to be and was a comic programme of complete nonsense - whether the learned trial judge should have held that the ordinary and reasonable listener would have concluded that the appellant was identified and that it was alleged that the appellant used or was involved in selling illicit drugs and hence has been and was guilty of serious criminal offences.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 536
12 Mar 2001
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Brooke And Sir Martin Nourse
Defamation
The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication. Held: It is necessary for the defendants to establish that they had a duty to publish the article if they are to be entitled to common law privilege. Applying the "duty-interest" test from Reynolds would work no injustice on these facts and there would be no violation of ECHR Article 10 if the defendants were not permitted to rely on the proposed amendment in support of their plea of qualified privilege.
The time to check the factors of the decision to publish was that of publication.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd and Another; QBD 15-Mar-2001 - Times, 15 March 2001; Gazette, 11 May 2001; [2001] EWHC 706 (QB); [2001] EMLR 29

 
 Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd and Another; QBD 15-Mar-2001 - Times, 15 March 2001; Gazette, 11 May 2001; [2001] EWHC 706 (QB); [2001] EMLR 29
 
Englefield and Another v Steinberg [2001] EWCA Civ 436
26 Mar 2001
CA
May LJ
Defamation
Application for leave to appeal out of time against an interim order in defamation claim. Held: The defendant had not shown any good cause for setting the judge's case management directions aside, nor that he should recuse himself.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Thoma v Luxembourg 38432/97; [2001] ECHR 237; (2003) 36 EHRR 21; [2001] ECHR 240
29 Mar 2001
ECHR

Human Rights, Defamation
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award
The Court was concerned with a radio report on corruption, in the context of a re-afforestation, and reference was made to an "authoritative source" which said that there was only one person who was incorruptible. Actions for libel were brought by persons claiming to be identifiable as the subject of corruption accusations. The Court, on those facts, took the view that the journalist had in fact adopted, at any rate partly, the content of the quotation in question. Despite this, it was held that the award of nominal damages against the journalist had constituted a breach of Article 10. It was not appropriate for the law to insist that he should formally distance himself from the content of the quotation, at least in circumstances where it was clear to the reader that the offending passage was a quotation from someone else.
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Alexander v Arts Council of Wales; CA 9-Apr-2001 - Times, 27 April 2001; Gazette, 01 June 2001; [2002] 1 WLR 1840; [2001] EWCA Civ 514; [2001] 4 All ER 205; [2001] EMLR 27
 
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd Times, 26 April 2001; [2001] EMLR 38
26 Apr 2001
QBD
Gray J
Defamation
A defendant could not support a defence in defamation proceedings of qualified privilege by putting before the court matters of which it was unaware at the time of publication. The duty to publish and the interest in receiving the information, and upon which reliance was to be placed, must exist at the time of publication. The freedom of the press was not absolute, and the defendants had sought first to obtain the complainant's answers to the matter proposed to be published.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Dr X v Y and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 664
3 May 2001
CA

Defamation

[ Bailii ]

 
 O'Shea v MGN Ltd and Free4Internet Net Limited; QBD 4-May-2001 - [2001] EWHC QB 425; [2001] EMLR 943
 
Reavey and others v Century Newspapers Ltd and Another [2001] NIQB 17
4 May 2001
QBNI

Litigation Practice, Defamation
The plaintiffs sought orders against the defendants and each of them to enable the plaintiffs to sue for defamation or malicious falsehood certain persons whose identities are at present unknown to the plaintiffs but which are allegedly known to the defendants and each of them and who were the source of information relayed by the two defendants in Parliament and under absolute privilege. The plaintiffs aver that the defendants and each of them are, or have been, in possession of certain documents and information which would identify those persons thus enabling the plaintiffs to sue them for defamation.
[ Bailii ]
 
Wilson v Westney and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 839
17 May 2001
CA
Keene LJ
Torts - Other, Defamation
Application for permission to appeal from an order dismissing the appellant's claim for defamation and malicious falsehood and gave summary judgment for the respondents, who were the defendants.
[ Bailii ]
 
Austin v Newcastle Chronicle and Journal Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 834
18 May 2001
CA
Aldous, Judge, LJJ, Cresswell J
Defamation
The claimant appealed against the strike out of his claim in defamation against the defendant. The action was delayed pending the outcome of the Reynolds appeal to the Hous of Lords.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Branson v Bower (No 1); CA 24-May-2001 - Times, 23 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 791; [2001] EMLR 32
 
Elite Model Management Corporation and Others v The British Broadcasting Corporation
25 May 2001
QBD
Eady J
Defamation
courtcommentary.com Fundamental preliminary application in libel action - did the publication complained of convey any meaning defamatory of any of the claimants?
[ courtcommentary.com ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and Others ex parte B, Regina v Same ex parte T, Regina v Same, ex parte C Times, 08 June 2001
8 Jun 2001
QBD

Human Rights, Defamation, Education
The Convention gave a right to a fair reputation which had to be upheld in the law, but the disciplinary procedures within a school independent appeal panel did not directly affect that reputation, and the procedures had been designed to respect the potential for damage, and to provide proper protection. It was not necessary in this case to define the extent of such a right, but the right to a 'fair reputation' was to be preferred to an interpretation protect a 'good reputation.'
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1

 
McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd; Liam Clarke and and Andrew Neil (No 3) Times, 19 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 933
12 Jun 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Longmore
Defamation, Litigation Practice
In defamation proceedings the defendant had invited one issue to be left to the jury. After losing the case, the defendant sought to appeal, arguing that the jury's verdict was perverse. It was held that such an appeal amounted to an abuse of process, and if allowed, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The issue was central to the judgment. The admission that the issue was referred to the jury by the defendant's mistake, because there was only one proper verdict, but that could not allow the reversal of an express request to the judge to put that issue to the jury.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and others [2001] EWCA Civ 871; [2001] EMLR 34
12 Jun 2001
CA
Simon Brown LJ, Chadwick LJ, Longmore LJ
Litigation Practice, Defamation

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Shendish Manor Ltd v Coleman [2001] EWCA Civ 913
15 Jun 2001
CA

Defamation
The respondent was leader of Dacorum Council. The claimant sought planning permission. It was alleged that after the meeting the defendant told another councillor that the owner of claimant was "a crook and is only in business for a fast buck." Other similar allegations were made.
[ Bailii ]
 
Branson v Bower [2001] EWHC QB 460; [2002] QB 737
15 Jun 2001
QBD
Eady J
Defamation
Eady J considered that: "Mr Price argues that the objective test for fair comment cannot be fulfilled (at any point) if the facts pleaded by the Defendant might take on a different significance when set against other facts not referred to in the words complained of—at least if the Defendant either knew about or could have discovered them. This raises a new clutch of problems for analysis.
The simplest example would be where a man has been charged with child abuse and a newspaper article calls for him to be suspended from his teaching post for so long as this question mark remains over him. On the face of it, that would be a legitimate instance of fair comment if those facts stood alone. Suppose, however, that there are facts, not mentioned by the Defendant, which throw a different light on matters. For example, the proceedings had been dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service, or he has been acquitted at trial, because it transpired that it was a case of mistaken identity, or because he had an alibi, or because DNA testing excluded him as the culprit. In those circumstances, the underlying factual substratum of the comment (viz there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he may be guilty of child abuse) would have collapsed.
The existence of such extraneous circumstances would be relevant in dealing with the question of whether the facts were truly stated (question … [para 43 [iii] above]). They would also be relevant if it turned out that the Defendant had suppressed the exculpatory evidence deliberately. That would be evidence of malice—if the case ever got that far (question . . [para 43 [vi] above]). Where I would part company with Mr Price is over the question of whether such extraneous facts could also be relevant for answering question … [para 43 [v] above]. The question would simply be "Could someone honestly express the opinion that the Claimant should be suspended on the footing that he was currently facing charges of child abuse?" The answer to that would almost certainly be in the affirmative. It does not need to be confused with the other two questions I have identified. This is because the objective test for fair comment is concerned with whether the Defendant is able to show that a hypothetical person could honestly express the relevant comment on the facts pleaded and/or proved by the Defendant. I do not understand Mr Price to challenge that as a proposition of law.
If the Claimant, by way of rebuttal, proves truly exculpatory circumstances which negate the suspicious circumstances raised by the Defendant, that will undermine the accuracy of the factual substratum for the comment. The Defendant would therefore fail at question 1 [para [iii] above]."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Steedman and others v British Broadcasting Corporation [2001] EWCA Civ 984
19 Jun 2001
CA

Defamation

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Max Mosley and Another v Focus Magazin Verlag Gmbh [2001] EWCA Civ 1030
29 Jun 2001
CA
Pill, Thorpe, Mantell LJJ
Defamation
The claimant appealed against summary dismissal of his claim in defamation.
Defamation Act 1996 8(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 4) Times, 03 July 2001; [2001] EMLR 858
3 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Woolf MR
Costs, Defamation
The fact that a defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing a case after an offer of settlement, was not a reason for not awarding costs to be paid on an indemnity basis. Such an award had no penal element, and did not first require any condemnation of the plaintiff. Nor was it wrong to award interest on the costs. The purpose of the rule was to correct the perceived injustice of the general rule against awarding interest on costs in defamation cases. The general rule that interest is not awarded on damages costs is because the assessment of damages by the jury is intended to reflect the damage to reputation up to the date of the award.
Simon Brown LJ said: "When dismissing the principal appeal, we left over for decision whether The Times should pay the respondent's costs of that appeal on a standard or an indemnity basis. Clearly rather more of a stigma attaches to an indemnity costs order made in this context than in the context of a rule 36.21 offer - although even then no moral condemnation of the appellant's lawyers is necessarily implied. ."
Civil Procedure Rules 36.21
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hamilton v Al-Fayed and Others (No 3) Times, 25 July 2001; [2001] EWHC QB 389
13 Jul 2001
QBD
The Hon Mr Justice Morland
Costs, Defamation, Litigation Practice
Where a person funded another's court action as an act of charity, it should be exceptional to order that third party to contribute to the costs of the successful opponent. Nevertheless there could be no absolute rule against such orders. There is a clear distinction between those who act in this way as pure funders, and those who funded litigation from some contractual obligation. Another relevant consideration was whether the funder had information to suggest that the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success, or whether he acted as some quixotic philanthropist.
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 4(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Irving v Penguin Books Limited, Professor Lipstat [2001] EWCA Civ 1197
20 Jul 2001
CA

Defamation
Application for permission to appeal.
Defamation Act 1952 5
[ Bailii ]

 
 Baldwin v Rusbridger and Another; QBD 23-Jul-2001 - Times, 23 July 2001
 
Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1263
23 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Latham, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Defamation
The claimant appealed after closing her action for an alleged defamation by the respondents in a leaflet published by them. She challenged an interim decision by the judge as to the meaning of the words complained of. Held: The leaflet made reference to the claimant's history as a litigant but did so in a way which was capable of being misconstrued by those to whom it was addressed. Whilst an appellate court should be reluctant to depart from an interim ruling by a judge, they did so in this case. The appeal was allowed, though the judge's summation of the principles was impeccable. Lord Phillips approved as impeccable Eady J's analysis at first instance.
Lord Phillips said: "The proper role for the judge when adjudicating a question of this kind is to evaluate the words complained of and to delimit the range of meanings of which the words are reasonably capable, exercising his or her own judgment in the light of the principles laid down in the authorities and without any of the former Order 18 Rule 19 overtones. If the judge decides that any pleaded meaning falls outside the permissible range, then it will be his duty to rule accordingly. In deciding whether words are capable of conveying a defamatory meaning, the court should reject those meanings which can only emerge as the produce of some strained or forced or utterly unreasonable interpretation. The purpose of the new rule is to enable the court to fix in advance the ground rules and permissible meanings, which are of cardinal importance in defamation actions, not only for the purpose of assessing the degree of injury to the claimant's reputation but also for the purpose of evaluating any defences raised, in particular, justification and fair comment.
The court should give the article the natural and ordinary meaning which it would have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader reading the article once. Hypothetical reasonable readers should not be treated as either naive or unduly suspicious. They should be treated as being capable of reading between the lines and engaging in some loose thinking, but not as being avid for scandal. The court should avoid an over-elaborate analysis of the article, because an ordinary reader would not analyse the article as a lawyer or accountant would analyse documents or accounts. Judges should have regard to the impression the article has made upon themselves in considering what impact it would have made on the hypothetical reasonable reader. The court should certainly not take a too literal approach to its task."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Lukowlak v Unidad Editorial SA (No 1); QBD 23-Jul-2001 - Times, 23 July 2001; [2001] EMLR 46
 
MacIntyre v Phillips and Others Times, 30 August 2002; Gazette, 26 September 2002
24 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Dyson and Mr Justice Wall
Defamation
The appellant police officers and others were defendants in an action for defamation. They appealed a refusal of a trial of the preliminary issue as to whether they had the benefit of qualified privilege. They said that recent case law (GKR Karate and Loutchansky) had established a rule to that effect. Held: The cases did not establish any such rule of practice. The judge's discretion as to case management was to remain unfettered. The judge had to balance the possibility of averting a long and expensive trial against the delay of an opportunity to a claimant to defend his character.
1 Cites



 
 Berezovsky and Glouchkov v Forbes Inc and Michaels; CA 31-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1251; [2001] EMLR 45
 
Daniels v Griffiths [2001] EWCA Civ 1376
31 Jul 2001
CA
Sir Martin Nourse
Defamation
Application for permission to appeal against summary dismissal of defamation action.
[ Bailii ]
 
Gutnick v Dow Jones [2002] HCA 56; [2001] VSC 305
28 Aug 2001

Callinan J
Commonwealth, Defamation
(High Court of Victoria) Callinan J said: "A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main attractions to users of it. And any person who gains access to the Internet does so by taking an initiative to gain access to it in a manner analogous to the purchase or other acquisition of a newspaper, in order to read it. . . If a publisher publishes in a multiplicity of jurisdictions it should understand, and must accept, that it runs the risk of liability in those jurisdictions in which the publication is not lawful and inflicts damage."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Austlii ]

 
 Steedman, Clohosy, Smith, Kiernan, Newman, Creevy, Anderson v The British Broadcasting Corporation; CA 23-Oct-2001 - Gazette, 06 December 2001; Times, 13 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1534; [2002] EMLR 318; [2002] EMLR 17
 
Best v Charter Medical of England Ltd and Another Times, 19 November 2001; Gazette, 06 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1588
26 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Walker, Lord Justice Keene
Defamation, Litigation Practice
The Civil Procedure Rules did not alter the previous practice in defamation actions, that the words to be relied upon should be pleaded in detail, save only in exceptional circumstances. The case had been properly struck out, as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, where the claimant had failed to establish the words used.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Al-Fagih v H H Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd; CA 1-Nov-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1634; [2001] 2 EMLR 215; [2002] EMLR 13; [2001] All ER (D) 48
 
Carlton Communications Plc and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1644
9 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mantell, And, Lord Justice Latham
Defamation
The defendant had published a series of articles alleging that certain documentaries made by the claimants were fakes. The claimants sought damages for libel. The defendants asserted that the words complained of were capable of not referring to the first claimant. Held: The trial should be limited to determining the truth of the real matters at issue. The judge had ruled certain meanings in, and the court should be reluctant to interfere with his ruling, but the party should still be able to put his case, and the judge's order would not allow that. Appeal allowed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5); CA 5-Dec-2001 - Times, 07 December 2001; Gazette, 06 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1805; [2002] 2 WLR 640; [2002] QB 783; [2002] Masons CLR 35; [2002] EMLR 14; [2002] 1 All ER 652
 
Field v Local Sunday Newspapers Limited Unreported, 10 December 2001
10 Dec 2001

Gray J
Defamation
The court considered whether to order jury trial of a defamation action. Held: The triggers of "prolonged examination" and "inconvenience" are not two separate requirements and must be considered together, although it is convenient to take them separately. The word "documents" is not limited to 'contemporaneous' documents or cross-examination material but would also include any written directions that would need to be given to a jury.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Turner v Grovit and others; HL 13-Dec-2001 - [2002] ICR 94; Gazette, 14 February 2002; [2001] UKHL 65; [2002] 1 WLR 107; [2002] 1 All ER 960 (Note); [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 320 (Note); [2002] IRLR 358; [2002] ILPr 28; [2002] CLC 463
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.