The claimant appealed against a finding that the defendant Amazon was bound to succeed in its defence under the 2002 Regulations against the claim in defamation, and that the claim should be dismissed as an abuse of process under Jameel. He had constructed a series of false adverse reviews of the claimant’s book in order to promote his own.
Held: The stream of abuse received by the defendant when his ruse was discovered was to be taken into account, and the judge found that the damage if any to the claimant’s reputation was at best marginal. For most of the remarks capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, the judge found that the defendants were: ‘overwhelmingly likely to succeed in defending it on the basis of justification and/or fair comment/honest opinion.’ He was correct. Also, and as to the need to protect the claimants from further publication, the judge held that they were secure save in the case of the fourth defendant by undertakings given. The costs incurred by the defendants had already exceeded andpound;70,000. Leave to appeal refused.
Ward, Pitchford LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 206
Bailii
Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Cited – Kaschke v Osler QBD 13-May-2010
kschke_ostlerQBD10
The claimant sued in defamation as regards the defendant’s comments in his internet blog on her historical left wing political connections. She complained that they made a connection with terrorist activities. The defendant said that the article was . .
Appeal from – McGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others QBD 30-Mar-2012
The claimant sued in defamation over postings in a review of a book on the Amazon web-site and otherwise. The court now heard interim applications.
Held: Various elements of the claim were struck out as being without value or prospect of . .
Cited by:
See Also – McGrath v Independent Print Ltd QBD 26-Jul-2013
The claimant alleged defamation in an article on the defendant’s web-site discussing a failure of his earlier defamation action. He now sought directions for a jury trial. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.472886
