Mark v Associated Newspapers Limited: CA 29 May 2002

The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendant had said she had authorised publication of extracts from her book about her time working as housekeeper for the prime minister’s family before she had obtained proper authority for publication.
Held: The court restated the application of the ‘bane and antidote principle’ of defamation law. A publication which advances and then purports to dispel a defamatory allegation can be acquitted of any possible defamatory meaning only in the very clearest of cases, because ‘mud sticks’.
Lord Justice Mummery
[2002] EWCA Civ 772, [2002] EMLR 839, [2002] EMLR 38
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedJameel and Another v Times Newspapers Limited CA 21-Jul-2004
The defendant had published a newspaper article linking the claimant to terrorist activity. The defendants argued that no full accusation was made, but only that the claimant was under investigation for such behaviour, and that the article had . .
CitedGeorge Galloway MP v The Telegraph Group Ltd CA 25-Jan-2006
The defendant appealed agaiunst a finding that it had defamed the claimant by repeating the contents of papers found after the invasion of Iraq which made claims against the claimant. The paper had not sought to justify the claims, relying on . .
CitedRoberts and Another v Gable and others CA 12-Jul-2007
The claimants appealed a finding of qualified privilege in their claim of defamation by the defendant author and magazine which was said to have accused them of theft and threats of violence against other members of the BNP.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedCuristan v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 30-Apr-2008
curistan_timesCA2008
The court considered the availability of qualified privilege for reporting of statements made in parliament and the actionable meaning of the article, which comprised in part those statements and in part other factual material representing the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 March 2021; Ref: scu.172188