A Manchester newspaper reported a public meeting of poor-law guardians, in which a medical officer was said to have neglected to attend pauper patients when sent for.
Held: Publication was not privileged. The Court looked beyond the subject-matter, saying the administration of the poor-law was a matter of national concern, but that there was no duty to report charges made in the absence of the medical officer and without his having had any opportunity to meet them. The meeting was a privileged occasion for the speaker, but publication in the press was not. ‘This review of the authorities shows that, save where the publication is of a report which falls into one of the recognised privileged categories, the court must look at the circumstances of the case before it in order to ascertain whether the occasion of the publication was privileged. It is not enough that the publication should be of general interest to the public. The public must have a legitimate interest in receiving the information contained in it, and there must be a correlative duty in the publisher to publish, which depends also on the status of the information which he receives, at any rate where the information is being made public for the first time.’
Cockburn CJ said that ‘it is impossible to doubt that the administration of the poor-law is a matter of national concern’
Mellish LJ observed: ‘there is no reason why the charges should be made public before the person charged has been told of the charges, and has had the opportunity of meeting them . . Such a communication as the present ought to be confined in the first instance to those whose duty it is to investigate the charges.’
References: (1877) LR 2 CP 215
Judges: Mellish LJ, Fox LJ and Bramwell LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
(Times 29-Oct-99, Gazette 25-Nov-99, Gazette 17-Nov-99, , , [2001] 2 AC 127, [1999] UKHL 45, [1999] 4 All ER 609, [1999] 3 WLR 1010, [2000] EMLR 1, [2000] HRLR 134, 7 BHRC 289) - Cited – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) CA 12-Mar-2001
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 . .
(, [2001] EWCA Civ 536) - Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 2-Oct-2009
The defendant had published a story in its newspaper. At that time it attracted Reynolds qualified privilege. After the circumstances changed, the paper offered an updating item. That offer was rejected as inadequate.
Held: The qualified . .
(, [2009] EWHC 2375 (QB), Times 23-Oct-09, [2010] EMLR 8) - Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Jul-2010
The claimant police officer complained of an article he said was defamatory in saying he was being investigated for allegations of accepting bribes. The article remained on the internet even after he was cleared. Each party appealed interim orders. . .
(, [2010] EWCA Civ 804, [2010] WLR (D) 187, [2010] EMLR 26, [2011] 1 WLR 153) - Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd SC 21-Mar-2012
The defendant had published an article which was defamatory of the claimant police officer, saying that he was under investigation for alleged corruption. The inquiry later cleared him. The court was now asked whether the paper had Reynolds type . .
(, [2012] UKSC 11, , UKSC 2010/0166, , , [2012] 2 WLR 760, [2012] WLR(D) 93, [2012] EMLR 21, [2012] 4 All ER 913, [2012] 2 AC 273, [2012] HRLR 18)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194508 br>