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: 2004 To: 2004

This page lists 34 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Hussein v William Hill Group [2004] EWHC 208 (QB)
2004

Hallett J
Defamation

1 Citers



 
 Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL; QBD 20-Jan-2004 - [2004] EWHC 37 (QB); [2004] EMLR 11
 
Don King v Lennox Lewis, Lion Promotions, LLC Judd Burstein [2004] EWHC 168 (QB)
6 Feb 2004
QBD
Eady J
Defamation, Jurisdiction

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Karen Phillipps v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWHC 190 (QB)
10 Feb 2004
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Defamation, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Howe and Co v Burden; QBD 11-Feb-2004 - [2004] EWHC 196 (QB)

 
 Downtex Plc v Flatley; QBD 27-Feb-2004 - [2004] EWHC 333 (QB)
 
Lennon v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd [2004] EWHC 359 (QB)
2 Mar 2004
QBD

Jurisdiction, Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
Meade v Pugh and Another [2004] EWHC 408 (QB)
5 Mar 2004
QBD
Tugendhat J
Discrimination, Defamation
The claimant was a social work student. He attended a work experience placement, and challenged the report given by the defendants on that placement, saying it was discriminatory and defamatory. He appealed a strike out of his claim. Held: The occasion was one of qualified privilege. The claimant had to establish malice to defeat that defence, and that had not been done. What matters was that there was no evidence that the defendants did not believe the report to be true.
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - Race Relations Act 1976
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Nail v Jones, Harper Collins Publications Ltd; Nail v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Wade etc [2004] EWHC 647 (QB)
26 Mar 2004
QBD
Eady J
Defamation, Damages
The claimant was upset by an article published by the defendant making false allegations that he had behaved in a sexually profligate manner many years earlier. When it was substantially repeated he sued. Held: The words were defamatory. An offer of amends had been made, and the court had to ask what effect that had on the damages. A healthy discount was appropriate, but the court had to recognise this could not be calculated strictly. It would remain arbitrary. The court should still refer to personal injury awards as a guide starting point for assessment of damages. The damages for the book were set at £7,500 and for the repetition in the newspaper at 45,000 reduced by 50% for the offer of amends.
Defamation Act 1996 3(5)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Musa King v Telegraph Group Ltd Times, 21 May 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 613; [2004] EMLR 429; [2005] 1 WLR 2282; [2004] 3 Costs LR 449; [2004] CP Rep 35; [2004] EMLR 23
18 May 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Kay Lord Justice Johnathan Parker
Defamation, Costs
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation. Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being represented under a conditional fee agreement. The court considered that the amount of costs being incurred served to act as an improper deterrent to defendant publishers, and they should not be held in terrorem by inflated costs agreements. If less claimants pursued cases because lawyers were reluctant to take cases unless they were assessed to to have a much greater than evens chance of success, then that was a price to be paid: "A claimant brings an action like this not only to recover damages but also to vindicate his reputation, but that consideration cannot go too far to bridge the gulf between the value of this action to the Claimant and its value to the lawyers instructed in the case. As I have said, something seems to have gone seriously wrong". (Brooke LJ)
Brooke J also said: “What is in issue in this case, however, is the appropriateness of arrangements whereby a defendant publisher will be required to pay up to twice the reasonable and proportionate costs of the claimant if he loses or concedes liability, and will almost certainly have to bear his own costs (estimated in this case to be about £400,000) if he wins. The obvious unfairness of such a system is bound to have the chilling effect on a newspaper exercising its right to freedom of expression . . and to lead to the danger of self-imposed restraints on publication which he so much feared . . It is not for this court to thwart the wish of Parliament that litigants should be able to bring actions to vindicate their reputations under a CFA, and that they should not be obliged to obtain ATE cover before they do so . . On the other hand, we are obliged to read and give effect to relevant primary and secondary legislation so far as possible in a way that is compatible with a publisher's Article 10 Convention rights . . In my judgment the only way to square the circle is to say that when making any costs capping order the court should prescribe a total amount of recoverable costs which will be inclusive, so far as a CFA-funded party is concerned, of any additional liability. It cannot be just to submit defendants in these cases, where their right to freedom of expression is at stake, to a costs regime where the costs they will have to pay if they lose are neither reasonable nor proportionate and they have no reasonable prospect of recovering their reasonable and proportionate costs if they win.
If this means . . that it will not be open to a CFA-assisted claimant to receive the benefit of an advocate instructed at anything more than a modest fee or to receive the help of a litigation partner in a very expensive firm who is not willing to curtail his fees, then his/her fate will be no different from that of a conventional legally aided litigant in modern times. It is rare these days for such a litigant to be able to secure the services of leading counsel unless the size of the likely award of compensation justifies such an outlay, and defamation litigation does not open the door to awards on that scale today. Similarly, if the introduction of this novel cost-capping regime means that a claimant's lawyers may be reluctant to accept instructions on a CFA basis unless they assess the chances of success as significantly greater than evens (so that the size of the success fee will be to that extent reduced), this in my judgment will be a small price to pay in contrast to the price that is potentially to be paid if the present state of affairs is allowed to continue.”
The court re-iterated the 'conduct rule' in defamation cases: "(1) There is a rule of general application in defamation (dubbed the "repetition rule" by Hirst LJ in Shah) whereby a defendant who has repeated an allegation of a defamatory nature about the claimant can only succeed in justifying it by proving the truth of the underlying allegation – not merely the fact that the allegation has been made;
(2) More specifically, where the nature of the plea is one of "reasonable grounds to suspect", it is necessary to plead (and ultimately prove) the primary facts and matters giving rise to reasonable grounds of suspicion objectively judged;
(3) It is impermissible to plead as a primary fact the proposition that some person or persons (e.g. law enforcement authorities) announced, suspected or believed the claimant to be guilty;
(4) A defendant may (for example, in reliance upon the Civil Evidence Act 1995) adduce hearsay evidence to establish a primary fact – but this in no way undermines the rule that the statements (still less beliefs) of any individual cannot themselves serve as primary facts;
(5) Generally, it is necessary to plead allegations of fact tending to show that it was some conduct on the claimant's part that gave rise to the grounds of suspicion (the so-called "conduct rule").
(6) It was held by this court in Chase . . that this is not an absolute rule, and that for example "strong circumstantial evidence" can itself contribute to reasonable grounds for suspicion.
(7) It is not permitted to rely upon post-publication events in order to establish the existence of reasonable grounds, since (by way of analogy with fair comment) the issue has to be judged as at the time of publication.
(8) A defendant may not confine the issue of reasonable grounds to particular facts of his own choosing, since the issue has to be determined against the overall factual position as it stood at the material time (including any true explanation the claimant may have given for the apparently suspicious circumstances pleaded by the defendant).
(9) Unlike the rule applying in fair comment cases, the defendant may rely upon facts subsisting at the time of publication even if he was unaware of them at that time.
(10) A defendant may not plead particulars in such a way as to have the effect of transferring the burden to the claimant of having to disprove them."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pal v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC 1485 (QB)
27 May 2004
QBD

Health Professions, Information, Defamation, Human Rights

[ Bailii ]
 
Milne v Express Newspapers [2004] EWCA Civ 664; [2004] EMLR 2; [2005] 1 WLR 772
28 May 2004
CA
May, Tuckey, Laws LJJ
Defamation
The claimant, having not accepted an offer to make amends, wanted to proceed to a jury trial. To be permitted to do so, he had to seek to establish that the defendants "knew or had reason to believe that the statement complained of . . was both false and defamatory of [him]" Held: The appeal failed. The court analysed the statutory provenance of the sections in the 1996 Act. The words imported a concept of recklessness. The words "reason to believe" in section 4(3) did not "apply to anything short of recklessness". The main parliamentary intention of the offer of amends procedure was promoting machinery to enable defamation proceedings to be compromised at an early stage without the expense of a jury trial. The procedure provided for appropriate vindication and compensation of a claimant, because if compensation was not agreed it was determined by the court on the same principles as defamation proceedings.
Defamation Act 1996 4(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hassan v Holburn and others [2004] EWCA Civ 789
9 Jun 2004
CA

Contract, Defamation
unfavourable references
[ Bailii ]
 
Orford v Rasmi Electronics and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 809
10 Jun 2004
CA

Torts - Other, Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
Hamilton and Another v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB)
22 Jun 2004
QBD
Eady J
Defamation
The claimants sought damages for slander and libel against the defendant. The offending words were in material broadcast on television about allegations (later shown to be untrue) of sexual misconduct against the claimants.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Maccaba v Lichtenstein [2004] EWHC 1580 (QB)
2 Jul 2004
QBD
Gray J
Defamation

Defamation Act 1952 2
[ Bailii ]
 
Maccaba v Lichtenstein [2004] EWHC 1577 (QB); [2005] EMLR 9; [2005] EMLR 206
2 Jul 2004
QBD

Defamation

[ Bailii ]

 
 Jennings v Buchanan; PC 14-Jul-2004 - [2004] UKPC 36; Times, 19 July 2004; [2004] EMLR 22; [2005] 1 AC 115; [2005] 2 All ER 273

 
 Jameel and Another v Times Newspapers Limited; CA 21-Jul-2004 - [2004] EWCA (Civ) 983; Times, 26 August 2004; [2004] EMLR 31
 
Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corporation v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2004] EWCA Civ 1305
12 Aug 2004
CA

Defamation

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
S v Suren and Another [2004] EWHC 1981 (QB)
10 Sep 2004
QBD
Tugendhat J
Defamation

Defamation Act 1952 - Civil Evidence Act 1968 5
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Mullan v Edwards and Another [2004] NIQB 83
30 Sep 2004
QBNI

Northern Ireland, Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
Selisto v Finland Unreported, 01 November 2004
1 Oct 2004
ECHR

Human Rights, Defamation
The applicant wrote articles for a newspaper alleging unprofessional behaviour in an anonymous surgeon, leading to the death of a hospital patient three years earlier. The prosecutor had concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. There was inconclusive evidence of alcohol consumption and of shaking hands having affected his surgery. The articles quoted a widow: "How is it possible that a surgeon is allowed to conduct surgery with alcohol in his blood?" The text on the front page attributed the patient's loss of life to the surgeon's "wet Independence Day" A second article contained interviews as to the general desirability of surgeons remaining sober in surgery. No individuals were mentioned. A third article, referred to the first, asked how the "relatively young woman in good shape died from routine surgery" and quoted extracts from the pre-trial investigation as to X's regular hangovers and shaking hands. The journalist was charged with intentional defamation and the editor-in-chief with negligent abuse of the freedom of the press. Held: Though the fines were modest, there was a violation of Article 10. Sir Nicolas Bratza, the President, dissented on the basis that neither the conviction of the journalist, nor the fine imposed on her, was disproportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others. "By reason of the 'duties and responsibilities' inherent in the exercise of freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.". Because the case concerned factual allegations the Court attached importance to the point that these duties and responsibilities had been respected. The national courts had not actually found that the facts presented were erroneous as such, but had rather based the conviction on her omissions of balancing information: "It is also of importance that the depicted events and quotations in the [third] article ... were derived from the police's pre-trial record, which was a public document. In the court's opinion no general duty to verify ... statements contained in such documents can be imposed on reporters and other members of the media, who must be free to report on events based on information gathered from official sources. If this were not the case the efficacy of Article 10 of the Convention would to a large degree be lost".
1 Citers


 
Lewis and others v King [2004] EWCA Civ 1329; Times, 26 October 2004
19 Oct 2004
CA
Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Mummery The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales
Defamation
The claimant sought damages for defamation for an article published on the Internet. The claimant Don King sued in London even though he lived in the US as did the defendants. Held: A publication via the internet occurred when the material was downloaded. Publication takes place, for the purposes of a defamation claim, where the relevant words are heard or read. When selecting the Internet as a publishing medium, a defendant chose a medium which was global, and thereby targeted every jurisdiction. By choosing a UK jurisdiction, the claimant avoided rules which would limit an action in the US. Nevertheless, the judge had correctly decided that the English courts had jurisdiction.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd [2004] EWHC 2337 (QB); Times, 26 October 2004; [2005] EMLR 64
20 Oct 2004
QBD
Tugendhat J
Defamation, Damages
The claimants sought damages for defamation. The claimed that the article had caused very substantial losses (£230 million) to them by affecting their market capitalisation value. The defendant sought to strike out that part of the claim. Held: The possible market capitalisation of the claimants was far too uncertain a basis for calculating damages. The claimant had simply asked the court to take its figures on trust, and it was a proposition of law rather than fact. The possible capitalisation was not the same as market value. Where market values were used as a basis for damages, the courts generally used the value as at the date of the wrong, not some future date.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1462; Times, 10 November 2004; [2005] QB 972
5 Nov 2004
CA
Lord Justice Brooke VP, Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Dyson
Defamation, Media, Human Rights
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her. Held: "in an action for defamation a court will not impose a prior restraint on publication unless it is clear that no defence will succeed at the trial. This is partly due to the importance the court attaches to freedom of speech. It is partly because a judge must not usurp the constitutional function of the jury unless he is satisfied that there is no case to go to a jury. The rule is also partly founded on the pragmatic grounds that until there has been disclosure of documents and cross-examination at the trial a court cannot safely proceed on the basis that what the defendants wish to say is not true. And if it is or might be true the court has no business to stop them saying it. "
Nothing in section 12(3) of the 1998 Act weakens the force of the rule in Bonnard v Perryman.
As to Human Rights, a person's right to protect his or her reputation is amongst the rights guaranteed by Art 8. There were two rights in conflict. The court stressed the distinction between a defamation case (where the claimant's right to a reputation has been put in issue and the issue cannot be effectively resolved before the trial) and a case which raises direct issues of privacy or confidentiality. Appeal dismissed.
Human Rights Act 1998 12(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Merelie v Newcastle Primary Care Trust [2004] EWHC 2554 (QB).
11 Nov 2004
QBD
Eady J
Defamation, Torts - Other
An harassment claim was being considered. It was suggested that a defendant sought revenge against the claimant.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
1 Citers


 
Botham v Niazi [2004] EWHC 2602 (QB); [2005] 2 Costs LR 259
12 Nov 2004
QBD
Richards J
Defamation, Costs
Application was made for the assessment of costs in an action but only after a very long delay.
[ Bailii ]
 
George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd [2004] EWHC 2786 (QB); Times, 13 January 2005; [2005] EMLR 7
2 Dec 2004
QBD
Eady J
Defamation
The claimant MP alleged defamation in articles by the defendant newspaper. They claimed to have found papers in Iraqi government offices after the invasion of Iraq which implicated the claimant. The claimant said the allegations were grossly defamatory and untrue. The defendants said that the articles were protected by qualified privilege, since the claimant was a public figure. Held: The articles were defamatory and an award of £150,000 was made. Context is often crucial in libel proceedings, and associated articles could be used to help discern meanings. " . . here the Defendants were not neutral. They did not merely adopt the allegations. They embraced them with relish and fervour. They then went on to embellish them . ." The Reynolds defence was not available. The notion of "exposure" plainly connotes, that wrongdoing has taken place. The leaders were defamatory of Mr Galloway and that their "sting" was factual rather than comment. "It is the difference between tentative comment and a rush to judgment. " Where a shere it was agreed that it would be the judge who would rule on whether a defendant had a duty to make a report of the allegations, the advice of a jury as to the alleged meanings would not be of assistance.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wood v Chief Constable West Midlands Police [2004] EWCA Civ 1638; Times, 13 December 2004; [2005] EMLR 20
8 Dec 2004
CA
May LJ, Dyson LJ, Wall LJ
Police, Defamation
The claimant was a director of a limited company. A Detective Chief Inspector with responsibility for crime prevention was investigating a series of car thefts and arrested the claimant's business partner and, before the accused had even stood his trial, informed members of the insurance industry, such as the manager of the Association of British Insurers Crime and Fraud Prevention Bureau, that he was guilty. In fact he was subsequently acquitted. The claimant complained that the letters associating him and the business with the accused meant and were understood to mean that he had aided and abetted the commission of numerous serious criminal offences. The director had not personally been suspect, but felt he had been defamed. The defendant appealed summary judgment against him for libel, complaining that the claimant had been allowed to add a claim for slander late in the day. Held: The judge had to find an equitable solution before allowing a late amendment. The judge had not gone through a detailed analysis, but had addressed the fundamental issue.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
W v Westminster City Council and Others Times, 07 January 2005; [2004] EWHC 2866 (QB); [2005] EWHC 102 (QB
9 Dec 2004
QBD
Tugendhat J
Defamation
The claimant sought to bring an action for defamation based upon communications made in a child protection conference. The reference was in a Report for Conference to be held pursuant to the duties imposed on local authorities by the Children Act that there was "concern that [the claimant] might be grooming S for prostitution." The two individual employees of the defendant Council responsible for the publication admitted that it should not have happened and that the explanation was one of mistake and a misunderstanding on their part. Held: Words published at such conferences were protected by qualified but not absolute privilege. The public interest was the same as in S -v- Newham. The Human Rights Act had come into force since, but the same interests had to be balanced.
Tugendhat J said that: "This is a case of an existing and established relationship, going back many years, between the mother's family and the Social Services Department of the Council. Accordingly, Kearns supports the following conclusion. The fact that the information in the words complained of was not verified (or not 'evidence based') could not take the case outside the protection of qualified privilege unless [the authors of the report] were deliberately publishing what they knew to be outside the official guidance known to them.
It is true that the duties of the Council in this case (which were being performed on their behalf by [the authors]) were public law duties imposed upon them by the Children Act. If the words complained of are published to [a] person to whom there is no duty to publish, or at a time, or in other circumstances when there is no duty to publish, the consequences of that do call for consideration.
However, in my judgment what matters is that the relationship between the Defendants and the publishees was an established one which plainly requires the flow of free and frank communications in both directions on all questions relevant to the discharge of the Council's functions."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd and others [2004] EWHC 2928 (QB)
17 Dec 2004
QBD
Eady J
Defamation
Eady J said: "repetitive and loose talk about questions can convey the impression there are reasonable grounds to suspect."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Nail and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1708; [2005] 1 All ER 1040
20 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice May
Defamation, Damages
The claimant appealed the award of damages in his claim for defamation. The defendants had variously issued apologies. The claimant had not complained initially as to one publication. Held: In defamation proceedings the damage to feelings is assessed as at the point of assessment, and conduct of the defendant after the publication may aggravate or mitigate the damage and therefore the award. The court could not say the awards were wrong. Appeals dismissed.
Defamation Act 1996 2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Busuioc v Moldova 61513/00; [2004] ECHR 695; [2004] ECHR 695
21 Dec 2004
ECHR

Human Rights, Defamation
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) - Violation of Art. 10 with regard to certain statements; No violation of Art. 10 with regard to other statements; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings.
1 Citers

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