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: 2003 To: 2003

This page lists 37 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Charterhouse Clinical Research Unit Ltd v Richmond Pharmacology Ltd [2003] EWHC 1099
2003
QBD
Morland J
Defamation, Human Rights
Morland J said: "it is the duty of the courts to keep claims alleging trade libels within their proper bounds, particularly having regard to s.12(4) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 10 of the Convention."
European Convention on Human Rights 10 - Human Rights Act 1998 12(4)
1 Citers


 
Cleese v Clark [2004] EMLR 37; [2003] EWHC 137 (QB)
2003
QBD
Eady J
Defamation, Damages
The court looked at the calculation of damages after an offer of amends under the Act by the defendant. Held: Such calculations have to be linked to the very different circumstances of each case. Comparisons with awards after jury trial were unhepful: "I am not concerned with hypothesising as to what a particular group of 12 lay persons might have done, on the basis of what other groups of lay persons have done in the past" and "I must also have an eye to the levels of compensation awarded in personal injury claims. That is in accordance with the modern practice and was only recognised as acceptable following the Court of Appeal’s decision in John v MGN Ltd [1997] Q.B. 586. It is important to realise that there have been relatively few jury awards over the intervening period. One needs naturally to put to one side some of the well known awards in earlier cases where juries were not invited to take such factors into account. There is, therefore, as we have been told more than once recently, a ‘new landscape’ and assessments have to be made without the baggage of that previous experience." He continued: "the amount of financial compensation is likely to be assessed partly be reference to the timing, scope and effectiveness of any apology made, or proffered, and it clearly makes sense for the two matters to be on the agenda for discussion at the same time."
It is appropriate in defamation, as in other areas of the law, for a tortfeasor to "take his victim as he finds him".
Defamation Act 1996 3(5)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Abu v MGN Ltd [2003] 1 WLR 2001
2003
QBD
Eady J
Defamation, Damages
There should be nothing in any sense "rough and ready" about the assessment of the claimant's reputation under the offer of amends procedure in the 1996 Act. If compensation is not agreed it should be determined by the court on the same principles as in defamation proceedings. The court will take account of a range of factors similar to those in a full action, such as the gravity of the allegations, the scale of publication and any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors particular to the case.
Eady J said: "The Neill Committee recommendation was primarily directed towards providing a fair and reasonable exit route for defendants confronted with unreasonable demands from such manipulative or powerful claimants, who felt no doubt sometimes that they had them 'over a barrel'. Yet it was naturally hoped that the 'offer of amends' would help to focus minds on achieving realistic compromise, and thus reduce the cost, for a much wider range of litigants. Whether any such reform will succeed, however, must depend on whether the statutory provisions as drafted are attractive to use. In this instance, it must provide an incentive to defendants to make the offer and to claimants to accept. In either case, a rational decision can only be made if it is possible within reasonable limits to predict the range of outcomes to which one is committing oneself. For example, before making an offer a defendant needs to be able to assess the gravity of the impact of the libel upon the complainant's reputation and feelings, and this will generally have to be done in the light of the particulars of claim and/or letter before action. It would not seem fair if an offer is made and accepted on one basis, and the complainant then reveals for the first time elements of pleadable damage not previously mentioned, such as for example that his marriage has broken down or that he has lost his employment.
It would only accord with most people's sense of justice if the offer of amends is construed as relating to the complaint as notified. Such an approach would also accord with the modern 'cards on the table' approach to litigation generally and, more specifically, with the thinking behind the Defamation Pre-Action Protocol."
Defamation Act 1996 3(5)
1 Citers



 
 Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl; QBD 2003 - [2003] EWHC 2945 (QB); [2004] 2 All ER 92
 
Cleese v Clark and Another [2003] EWHC 137 (QB); [2004] EMLR 3
6 Feb 2003
QBD
Eady J
Damages, Defamation
Assessment of damages after offer of amends. Held: the Court's award of damages serves as "an outward and visible sign of vindication"
Defamation Act 1996 3
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Peter Halford v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary, Timothy Eric Curtis [2003] EWCA Civ 102
13 Feb 2003
CA
Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Simon Brown, Mr Justice Jacob
Defamation, Police
The claimant appealed orders in favour of the defendant that statements, which he claimed were defamatory, were made in situations attracting qualified privilege. Allegations had been made by his step-children that the claimant had assaulted them. He had been interviewed by the police, but a prosecution was rejected because the children's evidence was inconsistent with the marks noted. Nevertheless, his work as an educational welfare officer, and the suggestion that the police retained an 'open file' led to them staying on the child protection register. The claimant also alleged malice. Held: The context of the child protection hearing was clearly one attracting qualified privilege. As to malice, the test is subjective, depending on the defendant's state of mind and intention. The remaining possibility of other acts of abuse was enough to destroy any possible foundation for the allegation of malice.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Gough v Local Sunday Newspapers (North) Ltd and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 297; Times, 27 March 2003; Gazette, 22 May 2003
12 Mar 2003
CA
The Hon Mr Justice Bell Mr Justice Keene Lord Justice Simon Brown
Elections, Defamation
The appellant claimed he had been libelled, when he was called incompetent by the respondent in the way he dealt with finding an uncounted bundle of votes after an election. He appealed a finding of justification. The finding was based upon an interpretation of election law which, it was claimed, were themselves contentious. Held: No rule explicitly provided for the situation which had occurred. An inspection could only be proper if the number of votes and mjority were such as to suggest that the uncounted votes might affect the result, and a petition might be expected. In the circumstances of doubt and clear difference of opinion between the court of appeal, and the judge at first instance, the finding of justification of the libel could not be supported.
Representation of the People Act 1983 36(2) - Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules 1986 38 47
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Patterson v ICN Photonics Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 343
13 Mar 2003
CA

Defamation
The Court considered its own power to intervene in a defamation case to look at the meanings found by the judge hearing the case. The established principles "do not, however, prevent this court from intervening in an appropriate case, where it is satisfied that the judge has clearly gone wrong as a matter of approach or has reached a conclusion which is patently unsustainable." No self-denying ordinance can absolve the Court of Appeal from its responsibility to act where it is satisfied that it should intervene, even where the ruling below has been an "inclusive" one.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kearns and Others v The General Council of the Bar [2003] EWCA Civ 331; [2003] 1 WLR 1357
17 Mar 2003
CA
Mr Justice Keene Lord Justice Mantell Lord Justice Simon Brown
Legal Professions, Defamation
The claimants had sought to recover from the General Council of the Bar damages for libel in a communication from the head of the Bar Council's Professional Standards and Legal Services Department to all heads of chambers, their senior clerks and practice managers to the effect that the claimants were not solicitors and were thus not entitled to instruct counsel with the result that it would be improper for members of the Bar to accept work from them. The letter was clearly noth libellous and untrue, but also not malicious. The court was asked when is verification a relevant circumstance in determining whether or not a defamatory communication is protected by qualified privilege? Held: On the defence of qualified privilege: "The argument, as it seems to me, has been much bedevilled by the use of the terms "common interest" and "duty-interest" for all the world as if these are clear-cut categories and any particular case is instantly recognisable as falling within one or other of them. It also seems to me surprising and unsatisfactory that privilege should be thought to attach more readily to communications made in the service of one’s own interests than in the discharge of a duty – as at first blush this distinction would suggest. To my mind an altogether more helpful categorisation is to be found by distinguishing between on the one hand cases where the communicator and the communicatee are in an existing and established relationship (irrespective of whether within that relationship the communications between them relate to reciprocal interests or reciprocal duties or a mixture of both) and on the other hand cases where no such relationship has been established and the communication is between strangers (or at any rate is volunteered otherwise than by reference to their relationship … Once the distinction is made in this way, moreover, it becomes to my mind understandable that the law should attach privilege more readily to communications within an existing relationship than to those between strangers. The latter present particular problems."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ghannouchi v Houni Ltd and others [2003] EWHC 552 (QB)
17 Mar 2003
QBD

Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
Lakah Group and Another v al-Jazeera Satellite Channel and Another Times, 18 April 2003
26 Mar 2003
QBD
Gray J
Jurisdiction, Defamation
The defendant sought an order that the defamation proceedings had been invalidly served. Held: The Rule introduced an additional code and alternative method of service, but not a comprehensive code. Establishing a place of business under section 695 connoted a greater degree of permanence than was required under the rules. However the rules still required that the respondent had a 'place of business' and service at a place with which the company had no more than a transient connection was insufficient. The claimant had not established that service had been effective.
Companies Act 1985 695 - Civil Procedure Rules 6
1 Citers


 
Maccaba v Lichtenstein [2003] EWHC 1325 (QB)
15 Apr 2003
QBD
Gray J
Defamation
Claims in slander, harassment and breach of confidence.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hung v Gardiner [2003] BCCA 257; 13 BCLR (4th) 298; 1 Admin LR (4th) 152; 227 DLR (4th) 282
6 May 2003


Defamation, Commonwealth
Canlii (Court of Appeal for British Columbia) The court was asked whether a person who provides information to a professional disciplinary body about the conduct of one of its members is liable in an action brought by that member. The clear answer is that the communication of the information is subject to absolute privilege, which provides a defence to all claims.
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Adams, MP v Guardian Newspapers Limited [2003] ScotCS 131; 2003 SCLR 593
7 May 2003
SCS
Lord Reed
Defamation
Whether statements atributed were defamatory - accusation of leaking email, but email said not to be confidential
[ Bailii ]
 
Harrods Limited v Dow Jones and Company Inc [2003] EWHC 1162 (QB)
22 May 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
Webster v British Gas Services Ltd [2003] EWHC 1188 (QB)
23 May 2003
QBD
Tugendhat J
Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
Mahajan v London Borough of Barnet and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 758
2 Jun 2003
CA

Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
Musa King v Telegraph Group Limited [2003] EWHC 1312 (QB)
9 Jun 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Defamation, Costs

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corporation v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2003] EWHC 1358 (QB)
12 Jun 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Defamation

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Vassiliev v Frank Cass and Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 1428 (QB); [2003] EMLR 33
13 Jun 2003
QBD

Defamation

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another [2003] EWHC 1461 (QB)
18 Jun 2003
QBD
Eady J
Defamation

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Keays v Guardian Newspapers Limited, Alton, Sarler [2003] EWHC 1565 (QB)
1 Jul 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Defamation
The claimant asserted defamation by the defendant. The parties sought a decision on whether the article at issue was a comment piece, in which case the defendant could plead fair comment, or one asserting fact, in which case that defence would not be available. Held: The piece was headed 'Comment' and all the facts referred to were matters in the public domain from the previous week. Comment did not have to avoid controversy or offence. The piece was a case of comment, and the defendant would be allowed to plead a defence of fair comment.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Gleaner Company Ltd and Another v Abrahams [2003] UKPC 55; Times, 22 July 2003; Gazette, 18 September 2003; [2004] 1 AC 628; [2003] 3 WLR 1038
14 Jul 2003
PC
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett, The Rt. Hon. Justice Tipping
Commonwealth, Defamation
(Jamaica) The appellants challenged a substantial award of damages for defamation. They had wrongfully accused a government minister of corruption. There was here evidence of substantial financial loss. "For nearly sixteen years the defendants, with all the prestige and resources at their command, have doggedly resisted the attempts of Mr Abrahams to clear his name. They maintained their allegations far beyond the point when it became obvious that they had no evidence to support them." Damages awarded by a jury were to be respected, and in this case the appeal was denied.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corporation v the Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) [2003] EWHC 1776 (QB)
21 Jul 2003
QBD

Defamation

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Benjamin Gray v Laurie Avadis [2003] EWHC 1830 (QB); Times, 19 August 2003
30 Jul 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Legal Professions, Defamation
The claimant had made complaints against the defendant solicitor to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. In answer the defendant made assertions about the claimant's mental health, and she now sought to bring action iin defamation on those statements. The defendant said the statements were protected by absolute privilege. Held: Given the status and nature of the Office it had the characteristics of a tribunal to which the principle in Trapp should be extended. The response had absolute privilege and the claim was bound to fail.
Solicitors Act 1974 34A
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Elvin Oduro v Time-Life Entertainment Group Limted [2003] EWHC 1787 (QB)
30 Jul 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Defamation

[ Bailii ]

 
 Blake v Associated Newspapers Ltd; QBD 31-Jul-2003 - [2003] EWHC 1960 (QB)
 
Powell and Another v Boladz and others [2003] EWHC 2160 (QB)
19 Sep 2003
QBD
Tugendhat J
Defamation

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Downtex v Flatley; CA 2-Oct-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 1282

 
 Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Ltd v Wall St Journal Europe SPRL; QBD 7-Oct-2003 - [2003] EWHC 2322 (QB)
 
G v Avadis [2003] EWCA Civ 1403
8 Oct 2003
CA

Legal Professions, Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited [2004] 1 WLR 387; [2003] EWCA Civ 1573; Times, 18 November 2003; [2004] 1 All ER 1220
11 Nov 2003
CA
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Thomas
Defamation, Evidence
The claimant sought damages for defamation. He feared arrest and extradition to the US if he came to England, and was granted an order allowing him to give evidence by video link. The defendant appealed that order. Held: There was no absolute rule which would allow the order made. The judge had considered that if the claimant had only been allowed to give written evidence, this would have had difficulties for both parties. There was no concept of an outlaw in English law to prevent a party bringing an action. "the court should have regard to all the circumstances in deciding whether it is appropriate to make a VCF order specifically to enable a witness to evade the ordinary processes of our (criminal and extradition) law under which he might lose his liberty. I do not accept such that orders should only be refused "in exceptional circumstances". In this case the claimant had chosen this jurisdiction, and sought its assistance. He was a volunteer. He should not be allowed to give evidence by video link.
Civil Evidence Act 1995 1 3 - Civil Procedure Rules 32.1(1)(c) 32.1(2) 33.2(2) 33.4(1) 32.7
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EMLR 33; [2003] EWHC 2799 (QB
11 Nov 2003
QBD
Eady J
Defamation
A policemen sued in defamation. The newspaper pleaded Reynolds qualified privilege. Held: The plea was struck out. There has developed tendency of defendants to plead qualified privilege since the Reynolds decision in "rather waffly generalities", and such defences required close scrutiny.
Eady J said: "Specifically in the context of the right to jury trial, judgment should not be given at any stage which has the effect of depriving the parties of a jury decision in any case where the defence may depend at least in part on a finding of fact which would be properly open to that tribunal: see e.g. Wallis v Valentine [2003] EMLR 8 at [13] and Branson v Bower [2002] QB 737 at [744]. Thus, even if a judge thinks that a particular factual conclusion for which one side contends is somewhat far-fetched, it is the jury's credulity rather than the judge's that must be kept in mind. The parties should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt: see e.g. Spencer v Sillitoe [2003] EMLR 10 at [31] and Bataille v Newland [2002] EWHC 1692 (QB) at pp 6-7."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 1); CA 26-Nov-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 1694; [2004] EMLR 6

 
 Jameel and Another v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl; QBD 5-Dec-2003 - [2003] EWHC 2945 (QB); [2004] 2 All ER 92
 
Wood v West Midlands Police [2003] EWHC 2971 (QB); [2004] EMLR 17
8 Dec 2003
QBD
Tugendhat J
Defamation, Police
The claimant's busness partner had been investigated by the police. He claimed in defamation after a senior officer circulated business associates and others informing them of the prosecution and suggesting the partners's guilt. He said he was defamed by association. The partner was acquitted. Held: Tudendhat J struck out the defence of qualified privilege as having no real prospect of success because in his judgment there was no lawful justification, still less any duty, on the chief constable to disclose the information that he did in so far as it concerned the claimant.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lakah Group and Another v Al Jazeera Satellite Channel and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 1781
9 Dec 2003
CA

Defamation

1 Cites

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