Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another: CA 3 Mar 2005

The defendant appealed dismissal of his defence to an action in defamation.
Held: The court proceeded in his absence, discerning two grounds of appeal from the papers. He had suggested that he awaited pro bono representation but was by profession a barrister, and the court did not accept that he could not present his case himself. He secondly said that the state had a duty to provide him with representation. The case of Steel and Morris did not create a universal duty to provide legal aid in defamation proceedings. The defendant’s letters demonstrated his ability to defend himself, and a further adjournment was in appropriate on the grounds of any illness. Though the issue had not been raised, the court considered whether there had been insufficiently widespread publication to justify an action. That had not been established.
Sedley LJ, Ward LJ, Longmore LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 288
Defamation Act 1996 8 9 10
England and Wales
See AlsoEnglefield and Another v Steinberg CA 26-Mar-2001
Application for leave to appeal out of time against an interim order in defamation claim.
Held: The defendant had not shown any good cause for setting the judge’s case management directions aside, nor that he should recuse himself. . .
See AlsoPritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another v Steinberg SCCO 27-Mar-2003
. .
Appeal fromSteinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another QBD 18-Jun-2003
. .
MentionedDuke of Brunswick v Harmer QBD 2-Nov-1849
On 19 September 1830 an article was published in the Weekly Dispatch. The limitation period for libel was six years. The article defamed the Duke of Brunswick. Seventeen years after its publication an agent of the Duke purchased a back number . .
CitedDow 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 by:
CitedMcBride v The Body Shop International Plc QBD 10-Jul-2007
The claimant sought damages for libel in an internal email written by her manager, accusing her of being a compulsive liar. The email had not been disclosed save in Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the claimant sought permission to use the email . .
See AlsoSteinberg v Englefield and Another CA 5-Jul-2005
. .
CitedMardas v New York Times Company and Another QBD 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2021; Ref: scu.223897