Tag: Defamation

Taylor v Anderton (Police Complaints Authority Intervening): CA 19 Jan 1995

Reports, which had been prepared for the purposes of a police complaint procedure, could be entitled to protection from disclosure under a public interest immunity certificate. The court also considered the relationship between the documentation and the decision as to whether a trial wasto be by judge alone, or with a jury. Cost is also a consideration: ‘The case as it stands will be very lengthy, very expensive, very burdensome and very difficult to control if tried by a judge alone. If tried by a judge and jury it will be even lengthier, even more expensive, even more burdensome and even more difficult to control.’ The fact that sight of a document for inspection may give the inspecting party a litigious advantage in the litigation does not of itself make production of the document unfair: ‘The crucial consideration is, in my judgment, the meaning of the expression ‘disposing fairly of the cause or matter’. Those words direct attention to the question whether inspection is necessary for the fair determination of the matter, whether by trial or otherwise. The purpose of the rule is to ensure that one party does not enjoy an unfair advantage or suffer an unfair disadvantage in the litigation as a result of a document not being produced for inspection. It is, I think, of no importance that a party is curious about the contents of a document or would like to know the contents of it, if he suffers no litigious disadvantage by not seeing it and would gain no litigious advantage by seeing it. That, in my judgment, is the test.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Rose, Morritt LJJ

Citations:

Independent 28-Feb-1995, Gazette 15-Mar-1995, Times 19-Jan-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 447

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Right Hon Aitken MP and Preston; Pallister and Guardian Newspapers Ltd CA 15-May-1997
The defendants appealed against an order that a defamation trial should proced before a judge alone.
Held: ‘Where the parties, or one of them, is a public figure, or there are matters of national interest in question, this would suggest the . .
Cited – Branson v Snowden; Branson v Gtech UK Corporation (a Body Corporate) and Rendine CA 3-Jul-1997
The respective parties had been preparing competing bids for the National Lottery. One (Branson) alleged that the other had offerered a bribe. The other responded that the allegation was a lie, and each sued the other for defamation.
Held: The . .
Cited – Brooker and Brooker v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police CA 26-Oct-1998
The plaintiffs claimed damages against the respondents for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. By mistake the defendants disclosed a letter from a senior officer supporting the allegation, despite which the Police Complaints Authority had denied . .
Cited – Ashley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.89742

Joynt v Cycle Trade Publishing Co: 1904

Kennedy J: ‘To sum it up, no doubt very imperfectly, it represents to my mind this – that the comment must be such that a fair mind would use under the circumstances, and it must not misstate facts, because a comment cannot be fair which is built upon facts which are not truly stated, and further, it must not convey imputations of an evil sort, except so far as the facts truly stated warrant the imputation’.

Judges:

Kennedy J

Citations:

[1904] 2KB 292

Citing:

Cited – Campbell v Spottiswoode 18-Apr-1863
The plaintiff, a dissenting Protestant minister, sought to advance Christianity in China by promoting a newspaper with letters emphasising its importance. The defendant attacked him in a rival newspaper, saying his motive was not to take the gospel . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Feb-2006
The defendant sought to defend the claim for defamation by claiming fair comment. The claimant said that the relevant facts were not known to the defendant at the time of the publication.
Held: To claim facts in aid of a defence of fair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.240316

Lincoln v Daniels: CA 1961

The defendant claimed absolute immunity in respect of communications sent by him to the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by the plaintiff, a Queen’s Counsel.
Held: Initial communications sent to the secretary of the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by a barrister did not attract absolute privilege, since they were not yet a step in an inquiry before an Inn of Court.
Matters submitted to proceedings before an inquiry conducted by the Inn would attract the same privilege as they would in proceedings before a court.
Devlin LJ said: ‘On such a point form is of the first importance; it is by form rather than by the substance of the complaint that a writ is to be distinguished from a letter before action.’
and ‘the privilege that covers proceedings in a court of justice ought not to be extended to matters outside those proceedings except where it is strictly necessary to do so in order to protect those who are to participate in the proceedings from a flank attack. It is true that it is not absolutely necessary for a witness to give a proof, but it is practically necessary for him to do so, as it is practically necessary for a litigant to engage a solicitor.’ and
‘It is not at all easy to determine the scope and extent of the principle in Watson v M’Ewan. I have come to the conclusion that the privilege that covers proceedings in a court of justice ought not to be extended to matters outside those proceedings except where it is strictly necessary to do in order to protect those who are to participate in the proceedings from a flank attack. It is true that it is not absolutely necessary for a witness to give a proof, but it is practically necessary for him to do so, as it is practically necessary for a litigant to engage a solicitor. The sense of Lord Halsbury’s speech is that the extension of the privilege to proofs and pre-cognition is practically necessary for the administration of justice; without it, in his view, no witness could be called. I do not think that the same degree of necessity can be said to attach to the functions of the Bar Council in relation to the Inns of Court.’
Devlin LJ explained the rationale for the distinction between domestic tribunals and those recognised by law: ‘A private institution, such as a club, may set up a body to determine questions of admission and expulsion and it may be composed entirely of lawyers and may follow with exactitude the procedure of a court of law. But absolute privilege is granted only as a matter of public policy and must therefore on principle be confined to matters in which the public is interested and where therefore it is of importance that the whole truth should be elicited even at the risk that an injury inflicted maliciously may go unredressed. The public is not interested in the membership of a private club. The significance of . . the . . requirement . . that the Court or tribunal should be recognised by law . . is that it shows that the public is interested in the matter to be determined by the court. Parliament would not, for example, regulate the disciplining of solicitors if there were not a public interest in the sort of men who practise as solicitors. The same consideration applies to the Bar.’
Devlin LJ considered that absolute privilege fell into three categories: ‘The absolute privilege which covers proceedings in or before a court of justice can be divided into three categories. The first category covers all matters that are done coram judice. This extends to everything that is said in the course of proceedings by judges, parties, counsel and witnesses, and includes the contents of documents put in as evidence. The second covers everything that is done from the inception of the proceedings onwards and extends to all pleadings and other documents brought into existence for the purpose of the proceedings and starting with the writ or other document which institutes the proceedings. The third category is the most difficult of the three to define. It is based on the authority of Watson v McEwan [1905] AC 480 in which the House of Lords held that the privilege attaching to evidence which a witness gave coram judice extended to the precognition or proof of that evidence taken by a solicitor. It is immaterial whether the proof is or is not taken in the course of proceedings. In Beresford v. White (1914) 30 TLR 591 the privilege was held to attach to what was said in the course of an interview by a solicitor with a person who might or might not be in a position to be a witness on behalf of his client in contemplated proceedings.’

Judges:

Devlin LJ, Sellers LJ

Citations:

[1962] 1 QB 237, [1961] 3 WLR 866, [1961] 3 All ER 740, (1961) 105 Sol Jo 647

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Watson v M’Ewan HL 1905
A claim was brought against a medical witness in respect of statements made in preparation of a witness statement and similar statements subsequently made in court. The appellant was a doctor of medicine who had been retained by the respondent in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Darker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police HL 1-Aug-2000
The plaintiffs had been indicted on counts alleging conspiracy to import drugs and conspiracy to forge traveller’s cheques. During the criminal trial it emerged that there had been such inadequate disclosure by the police that the proceedings were . .
Cited – Buckley v Dalziel QBD 3-May-2007
There was a heated dispute between neighbours, culminating in some generous or perhaps over-generous pruning by the claimant of the defendant’s trees and shrubs on the boundaries. The defendants reported the matter to the police. Both Mr and Mrs . .
Cited – Westcott v Westcott CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
Cited – Silcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 24-May-1996
The claimant had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock. The only substantial evidence was in the form of the notes of interview he said were fabricated by senior officers. His eventual appeal on this basis was not resisted. He now appealed . .
Cited – White v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD 1-Apr-2011
The claimant doctor sued in defamation for letters written by the defendants to the Fitness to Practice Directorate. She now sought to appeal against a finding that she could not rely upon one letter which had come to her attention through . .
Cited – Iqbal v Mansoor and Others QBD 26-Aug-2011
The claimant sought the disapplication of the limitation period in order to pursue the defendant solicitors, his former employers, in defamation. . .
Cited – Iqbal v Mansoor and Others QBD 26-Aug-2011
The claimant sought the disapplication of the limitation period in order to pursue the defendant solicitors, his former employers, in defamation. . .
Cited – Iqbal v Mansoor and Others QBD 26-Aug-2011
The claimant sought the disapplication of the limitation period in order to pursue the defendant solicitors, his former employers, in defamation. . .
Cited – Singh v Moorlands Primary School and Another CA 25-Jul-2013
The claimant was a non-white head teacher, alleging that her school governors and local authority had undermined and had ‘deliberately endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation’ against her as an Asian . .
Cited – O’Connor v Bar Standards Board SC 6-Dec-2017
The claimant barrister complained of the manner of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared of any breach of the Bar Code of Conduct, but her claim was then ruled out of time under section 7(5)(a), time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.180924

Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 5 Mar 2013

The claimant said that the defendant, in its Top Gear programme in a review of its car, caused it damage through malicious falsehood and defamation. They appealed against a finding that the words used were incapable of bearing the defamatory meanings complained of.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Though there were falsehoods in the programme, the claiant had been unable to identify its losses.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Moore-Bick, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 152

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Skuse v Granada Television CA 30-Mar-1993
The claimant complained that the defendant had said in a television programme that he had failed to act properly when presenting his expert forensic evidence in court in the trial of the Birmingham Six.
Held: The court should give to the . .
Cited – Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd and Another CA 31-Jan-2008
Whether Statement defamatory at common law
The claimant appealed against a striking out of her claim for defamation on finding that the words did not have the defamatory meaning complained of, namely that she was transgendered or transsexual.
Held: The appeal failed.
Sir Anthony . .
Appeal from – Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 28-Oct-2011
The claimant company manufactured electric cars. They claimed that a review of a car on the defendant’s programme ‘Top Gear’ included malicious falsehoods and was defamatory.
Held: The defamatory meanings claimed could not properly be . .
Appeal from – Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Feb-2012
The claimant, manufacturer of electric cars, complained of a review of its car on ‘Top Gear’. It’s pleaded meanings had been rejected, and it now sought leave to amend its pleading to add new alleged defamatory meanings. . .

Cited by:

Cited – McAlpine v Bercow QBD 24-May-2013
The claimant alleged defamation in a tweet by the defendant. The court now decided as a preliminary point, the meaning of the words: ‘Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*’. There had been other but widespread (mistaken) allegations against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Torts – Other

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471332

Mengi v Hermitage: QBD 20 Jul 2012

The defendant appealed from an order requiring the claimant to make payments by way of security for costs, saying that the amount ordered was insufficient.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2045 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Mengi v Hermitage QBD 30-Nov-2012
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.463088

Gardiner v Fairfax: 1942

Complaint was made that the plaintiff had been libelled in the defendant’s book review.
Held: A publication is defamatory in nature if it ‘is likely to cause ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general, to think the less of [the plaintiff]’.
A critic is ‘entitled to dip his pen in gall for the purposes of legitimate criticism.’
The court equated malice with a commentator’s failure to express his ‘real opinion’: ‘To establish malice, it is necessary to produce evidence that the comment was designed to serve some other purpose than that of expressing the commentator’s real opinion, for example, that of satisfying a private grudge against the person attacked.’

Judges:

Jordan CJ

Citations:

(1942) 42 SR (NSW) 171

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 28-Feb-2006
The defendant sought to defend the claim for defamation by claiming fair comment. The claimant said that the relevant facts were not known to the defendant at the time of the publication.
Held: To claim facts in aid of a defence of fair . .
Cited – Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert Cheng 13-Nov-2000
(Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong) For the purposes of the defence to defamation of fair comment: ‘The comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, what are the facts on which the comment is being made. The reader or . .
Cited – Robins v Kordowski and Another QBD 22-Jul-2011
The claimant solicitor said he had been defamed on the first defendant’s website (‘Solicitors from Hell’) by the second defendant. The first defendant now applied to set aside judgment entered by default. The claimant additionally sought summary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.368290

Mahon and Another v Rahn and Others (1): CA 12 Jun 1997

Two company directors sued Swiss bankers who had responded to enquiries from the police in London. The charges which followed had been dismissed, and the directors sued in defamation, seeking to rely upon the materials sent to the police.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There is no implied undertaking as to the use of disclosed documents in criminal proceedings preventing their use in civil proceedings. It was foreseeable that the information, if acted upon, would be made public. This applied whether or not the material was obtained under compulsion. There was no analogy between the position of the Crown in a criminal case and that of a party in civil proceedings. It could not be said that the Crown would be deterred from complying with its obligations of disclosure, whether at common law or now under statute, by concern that the accused might use the documents for some ulterior purpose. The rules of public interest immunity, immunity from suit and qualified privilege should be sufficient protection for people who might be adversely affected by collateral use of disclosed documents.

Judges:

Otton LJ, Staughton LJ

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-1997, [1998] QB 424

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Mahon v Rahn QBD 19-Jun-1996
Directors of a London firm of stockbrokers brought libel proceedings against two Swiss bankers.
Held: The absolute immunity which is given to both witnesses and potential witnesses extends to all those taking part in a criminal investigation . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Mahon v Rahn QBD 19-Jun-1996
Directors of a London firm of stockbrokers brought libel proceedings against two Swiss bankers.
Held: The absolute immunity which is given to both witnesses and potential witnesses extends to all those taking part in a criminal investigation . .
Cited – Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
See Also – Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2) CA 8-Jun-2000
The defendant’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings . .
Cited – McBride 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 Also – Mahon v Rahn and others (No 2) CA 8-Nov-1999
Brooke LJ attempted to draw a distinction between simple cases. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Evidence

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.83320

Cleese v Clark and Another: QBD 6 Feb 2003

Assessment of damages after offer of amends.
Held: the Court’s award of damages serves as ‘an outward and visible sign of vindication’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 137 (QB), [2004] EMLR 3

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1996 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464875

Kiam v Neill and Another (No 2): CA 26 Jul 1996

An allegation of insolvency was made against a well known businessman. An apology in agreed terms was published after 3 weeks.
Held: A jury award of 45,000 in damages was not excessive for a libel despite an apology having been given. The plaintiff’s prominence was a relevant circumstance.

Citations:

Times 26-Jul-1996, [1996] EMLR 493

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kiam v Neil and Another CA 14-Dec-1994
A defendant may not tell the jury of pre-trial offers of settlement from the Plaintiff on damages. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kiam v MGN Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
Where a court regards a jury award in a defamation case as excessive, a ‘proper’ award can be substituted for it is not whatever sum court thinks appropriate, wholly uninfluenced by jury’s view, but the highest award which a jury could reasonably . .
See Also – Kiam v Neil and Another CA 14-Dec-1994
A defendant may not tell the jury of pre-trial offers of settlement from the Plaintiff on damages. . .
Cited – Nail and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others CA 20-Dec-2004
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.82773

Berkoff v Burchill and and Times Newspapers Limited: CA 31 Jul 1996

The plaintiff actor said that an article by the defendant labelling him ugly was defamatory. The defendant denied that the words were defamatory.
Held: It is for the jury to decide in what context the words complained of were used and whether they were defamatory in those circumstances. An allegation that an actor was hideously ugly was capable of being defamatory of him on the grounds it exposed him to ridicule.
Neill LJ said ‘It is necessary in some cases to consider the occupation of the plaintiff.’ and ‘It will be seen from this collection of definitions that words may be defamatory, even though they neither impute disgraceful conduct to the plaintiff nor any lack of skill or efficiency in the conduct of his trade or business or professional activity, if they hold him up to contempt scorn or ridicule or tend to exclude him from society. On the other hand insults which do not diminish a man’s standing among other people do not found an action or libel or slander. The exact borderline may often be difficult to define . . the word ‘reputation’, by its association with phrases such as ‘business reputation’, ‘professional reputation’ or ‘reputation for honesty’, may obscure the fact that in this context the word is to be interpreted in a broad sense as comprehending all aspects of a person’s standing in the community. A man who is held up as a figure of fun may be defeated in his claim for damages, for example, by a plea of fair comment, or, if he succeeds on liability, the compensation which he receives from a jury may be very small. But nevertheless the publication of which he complains may be defamatory of him because it affects in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards him . . one has to consider the words in the surroundings in which they appear . . It is trite law that the meaning of words in a libel action is determined by the reaction of the ordinary reader and not by the intention of the publisher, but the perceived intention of the publisher may colour the meaning. In the present case it would, in my view, be open to a jury to conclude that in the context the remarks about Mr Berkoff gave the impression that he was not merely physically unattractive in appearance but actually repulsive. It seems to me that to say this of someone in the public eye who makes his living, in part at least, as an actor, is capable of lowering his standing in the estimation of the public and of making him an object of ridicule’.
Lord Millett, dissenting in the result, said that ‘it is one thing to ridicule a man; it is another to expose him to ridicule’.

Judges:

Neill LJ, Millett LJ, Phillips LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Aug-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 564, [1996] 4 All ER 1008

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Parmiter v Coupland And Another 1840
In an action for libel, the Judge is not bound to state to the jury, as matter of law, whether the publication complained of be a libel or not ; but the proper course is for him to define what is a libel in point of law, and to leave it to the jury . .
Cited – Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association CA 1970
The court considered whether an article published in the British Medical Journal was capable of bearing a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff dentist. The article made an attack upon the plaintiff’s technique for anaesthesia.
Held: Words may . .
Cited – The Capital and Counties Bank Limited v George Henty and Sons HL 1882
The defendant wrote to their customers saying ‘Henty and Sons hereby give notice that they will not receive in payment cheques drawn on any of the branches of the Capital and Counties Bank.’ The contents of the circular became known and there was a . .
Cited – Sim v Stretch HL 1936
Test For Defamatory Meaning
The plaintiff complained that the defendant had written in a telegram to accuse him of enticing away a servant. The House considered the process of deciding whether words were defamatory.
Held: The telegram was incapable of bearing a . .
Cited – Scott v Sampson QBD 1882
The court explained why evidence of particular acts of misconduct on the part of the Plaintiff tending to show his character and disposition should be excluded, saying ‘Both principle and authority seems equally against its admission. It would give . .
Cited – Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures CA 1934
The plaintiff (herself a Princess) complained that she could be identified with the character Princess Natasha in the film ‘Rasputin, the Mad Monk’. On the basis that the film suggested that, by reason of her identification with ‘Princess Natasha’, . .
Cited – Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England CA 1924
The court considered the duty of confidentiality owed by a banker to his client. Bankes LJ said: ‘At the present day I think it may be asserted with confidence that the duty is a legal one arising out of contract, and that the duty is not absolute . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Apr-2010
The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .
Cited – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 16-Jun-2010
The claimant said that a review of her book was defamatory and a malicious falsehood. The defendant now sought summary judgment or a ruling as to the meaning of the words complained of.
Held: The application for summary judgment succeeded. The . .
Cited – Uppal v Endemol UK Ltd and Others QBD 9-Apr-2014
The claimant alleged defamation by other contestants at the time when she was participating in the defendants’ TV show, Big Brother. The defendants had broadcast the material. The defendant now sought a ruling that the words complained of were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.78355

Kiam v Neil and Another: CA 14 Dec 1994

A defendant may not tell the jury of pre-trial offers of settlement from the Plaintiff on damages.

Citations:

Times 14-Dec-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kiam v Neill and Another (No 2) CA 26-Jul-1996
An allegation of insolvency was made against a well known businessman. An apology in agreed terms was published after 3 weeks.
Held: A jury award of 45,000 in damages was not excessive for a libel despite an apology having been given. The . .

Cited by:

See Also – Kiam v Neill and Another (No 2) CA 26-Jul-1996
An allegation of insolvency was made against a well known businessman. An apology in agreed terms was published after 3 weeks.
Held: A jury award of 45,000 in damages was not excessive for a libel despite an apology having been given. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.82772

British Data Management Plc v Boxer Commercial Removals Plc and Another: CA 28 Feb 1996

A quia timet action in a defamation case must specify the precise words which are expected to be used.

Citations:

Times 28-Feb-1996, [1996] 3 All ER 707

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Affirmed – Best v Charter Medical of England Ltd and Another CA 26-Oct-2001
The Civil Procedure Rules did not alter the previous practice in defamation actions, that the words to be relied upon should be pleaded in detail, save only in exceptional circumstances. The case had been properly struck out, as disclosing no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.78624

Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 12 Jan 1994

A libel in published photographs was capable of being remedied by the accompanying article. The court should look to the publication as a whole.

Citations:

Independent 14-Jan-1994, Times 12-Jan-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 31-Mar-1995
The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.78986

Brown v Bower and Another: QBD 31 Oct 2017

Judgment on issues of meaning and whether defamatory.
As to the Chase levels of meaning: ‘They come from the decision of Brooke LJ in Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003] EMLR 11 [45] in which he identified three types of defamatory allegation: broadly, (1) the claimant is guilty of the act; (2) reasonable grounds to suspect that the claimant is guilty of the act; and (3) grounds to investigate whether the claimant has committed the act. In the lexicon of defamation, these have come to be known as the Chase levels. Reflecting the almost infinite capacity for subtle differences in meaning, they are not a straitjacket forcing the court to select one of these prescribed levels of meaning, but they are a helpful shorthand. In Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd, for example, Gray J found a meaning of ‘cogent grounds to suspect’

Judges:

Nicklin J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2637 (QB), [2018] EMLR 9, [2017] WLR(D) 719, [2017] 4 WLR 197

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chase v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Dec-2002
The defendant appealed against a striking out of part of its defence to the claim of defamation, pleading justification.
Held: The Human Rights Convention had not itself changed the conditions for a plea of justification based upon reasonable . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hayden v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Mar-2020
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant, and the court now considered the meanings of the words complained of. Another person had been held by police for seven hours after identifying the claimant as a transgendered man.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.598440

Mann v O’Neill: 31 Jul 1997

High Court of Australia – Courts should be reluctant to extend the immunity given to witnesses: ‘the general rule is that the extension of absolute privilege is viewed with the most jealous suspicion, and resisted, unless its necessity is demonstrated’
Defamation – Absolute privilege – Absolute privilege only attaches out of necessity – Judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings – Complaint procedures and disciplinary proceedings – Letter to Attorney-General questioning special magistrate’s fitness to hold office – Letter not a step in disciplinary proceedings – Letter invoked investigative function equating with prosecuting authority’s function – Not necessary that statements to prosecuting authorities be absolutely privileged – Complaints to prosecuting authorities enjoy qualified privilege.

Citations:

(1997) 71 ALJR 903, (1997) 191 CLR 204, (1997) 145 ALR 682, (1997) 12 Leg Rep 21, [1997] Aust Torts Reports 81-436

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA 26-Oct-2006
The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Defamation

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.245753

Marrinan v Vibert: CA 2 Jan 1963

A tortious conspiracy was alleged in the conduct of a civil action. The plaintiff appealed against rejection of his claim.
Held: The appeal failed as an attempt to circumvent the immunity of a wirness in defamation by framing a claim in conspiracy. Sellers LJ considered whether a complaint was privileged: ‘Whatever form of action is sought to be derived from what was said or done in the course of judicial proceedings must suffer the same fate of being barred by the rule which protects witnesses in their evidence given before the court and in the preparation of the evidence which is to be so given.’
Sellers LJ said: ‘It has been sought in this case to draw a difference between the action of libel and slander, the action of defamation, and that which is set up in this case, one of conspiracy. I can see no difference in the principles of the matter at all. Whatever form of action is sought to be derived from what was said or done in the course of judicial proceedings must suffer the same fate of being barred by the rule which protects witnesses in their evidence before the court and in the preparation of the evidence which is to be so given.’

Judges:

Sellers LJ

Citations:

[1963] 1 QB 528

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Marrinan v Vibert QBD 1963
The plaintiff brought an action claiming damages for conspiracy against two police officers alleging they had conspired together to make false statements defamatory of him as a barrister.
Held: The claim was struck out. Even a conspiracy to . .
Approved – Cabassi v Vila 12-Dec-1940
High Court of Australia – The claim sought to sidestep the rule giving immuity to witnesses before a court by alleging a conspiracy to give false evidence.
Held: Starke J said: ‘But it does not matter whether the action is framed as an action . .

Cited by:

Cited – Westcott v Westcott CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
Cited – Silcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 24-May-1996
The claimant had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock. The only substantial evidence was in the form of the notes of interview he said were fabricated by senior officers. His eventual appeal on this basis was not resisted. He now appealed . .
Cited – Singh v Moorlands Primary School and Another CA 25-Jul-2013
The claimant was a non-white head teacher, alleging that her school governors and local authority had undermined and had ‘deliberately endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation’ against her as an Asian . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Defamation

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.270827

Flymenow Ltd v Quick Air Jet Charter Gmbh: QBD 15 Dec 2016

Warby J awarded a claimant company general damages of pounds 10 for a libel suggesting that it was insolvent.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3197 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – John v MGN Ltd CA 12-Dec-1995
Defamation – Large Damages Awards
MGN appealed as to the level of damages awarded against it namely pounds 350,000 damages, comprising pounds 75,000 compensatory damages and pounds 275,000 exemplary damages. The newspaper contended that as a matter of principle there is no scope in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.572637

Barron and Others v Collins: QBD 6 Feb 2017

Three MPs had sued in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused them of knowing of the sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham without doing anything about it. Liability now being established, the court set out to assess the damages payable under an offer of amends.
Held: The court set starting points of pounds 10,000 for each slander, and pounds 50,000 for each act of defamation.
Warby J repeated that: ‘ . . special caution is required when it comes to deciding what is justified and proportionate by way of compensation for libels such as those in issue here, which are published by one politician about another on a topic of public interest. Politicians may in general have thicker skins than the average. Whether or not that is so in the individual case, they are expected to tolerate more than would be expected of others.’

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 162 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.574091

Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd: QBD 25 Jul 2013

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2182 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At Supreme Court – 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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 19-Dec-2013
The claimant policeman alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant newspaper. The defendant advanced two substantive defences, a defence of public interest (Reynolds) privilege and justification. After protracted litigation, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.513773

Monks v Warwick District Council: QBD 7 May 2009

The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of a statement made by one of its planning officers.
Held: A source or contributor cannot be sued for a defamatory meaning which only arises from part of the media publication to which he has contributed.
Where a contributor’s words are included in a publication, and a claimant seeks to sue the contributor for publication of the article, the quote cannot be read in isolation to produce a more injurious meaning than the publication as a whole

Judges:

Sharp DBE J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 959 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Economou v De Freitas QBD 27-Jul-2016
Failed action for defamation on rape allegations
The claimant had been accused by the defendant’s daughter of rape. He was never charged but sought to prosecute her alleging intent to pervert the course of justice. She later killed herself. The defendant sought to have the inquest extended to . .
Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.346750

Stern v Piper and Others: CA 21 May 1996

The defendant newspaper said that allegations had been made against the plaintiff that he was not paying his debts. In their defence they pleaded justification and the fact that he was being sued for debt.
Held: A defamation was not to be justified in respect of extracts from affirmations in pending lawsuits. The court applied the rule that a repetition of a libel is as bad as the original to the situation where the defendant contended that it had simply made a statement that an allegation had been made.
Hirst LJ said: ‘I think it is significant that privilege only protects reports of proceedings taking place in open court, and that its foundation is that those proceedings took place in public, so that the public in general should have access to fair and accurate reports thereof: Webb v Times Publishing Co. Ltd. ‘
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘One can quite well understand, however, why the law of qualified privilege does not extend to the pre-trial reporting of allegations contained in court documents: it is one thing to report proceedings contemporaneously or even retrospectively – then both sides’ stories are being, or will have been, told in open court; quite another to be privileged to do so when perhaps (as here) only one side’s allegations are being related and at a time likely to be months or even years before the full picture will emerge in open court.’

Judges:

Hirst LJ, Simon Brown LJ, Sir Ralph Gibson

Citations:

Gazette 12-Jun-1996, Times 30-May-1996, [1997] QB 123, [1996] EWCA Civ 1291, [1996] 3 WLR 715, [1996] EMLR 413, [1996] 3 All ER 385

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd HL 1964
Ascertaining Meaning of Words for Defamation
The Daily Telegraph had published an article headed ‘Inquiry on Firm by City Police’ and the Daily Mail had published an article headed ‘Fraud Squad Probe Firm’. The plaintiffs claimed that those articles carried the meaning that they were guilty of . .
Cited – De Crespigny v Wellesley 9-Feb-1829
In an action for a libel, it is no plea, that the defendant had the libellous statement from another, and upon publication disclosed the author’s name. . .
Cited – De Crespigny v Wellesley 9-Feb-1829
In an action for a libel, it is no plea, that the defendant had the libellous statement from another, and upon publication disclosed the author’s name. . .
Cited – McPherson v Daniels 1829
Bayley J said: Upon the great point, viz. whether it is a good defence to an action for slander for a defendant to show he heard it from another, and at that time named the author, I am of the opinion that it is not’ and ‘the law will not permit a . .
Cited – Cadam v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd CA 1959
The defendants had published an article stating simply and solely that a writ had been issued against the four plaintiffs claiming damages for alleged conspiracy to defraud. They pleaded justification, based on the issue of the writ itself. The . .
Cited – Truth (NZ) Ltd v Holloway PC 1960
The publication complained of related to the plaintiff Cabinet Minister (referred to in the article as Phil), in which it was stated that a man had seen one Judd, to whom an import licence had been issued, with the object of getting information from . .
Cited – Waters v Sunday Pictorial Newspapers Ltd CA 1961
The defendants published an article describing the plaintiff estate agent as ‘a notorious dodgy operator of London slum properties’. The article quoted statements by Lord Goddard CJ 8 years before describing the plaintiff’s estate agency as ‘a . .
Cited – Chalmers v Payne 1835
Bane and Antidote Doctrine – Take them as One
The court considered the bane and antidote doctrine in defamation. B Alderson said: ‘But the question here is, whether the matter be slanderous or not, which is a question of the Jury; who are to take the whole together and say whether the result of . .
Cited – Webb v Times Publishing Co Ltd 1960
The Times newspaper published a report of the criminal trial in Switzerland of a British subject. When sued in defamation they sought to rely upon the defence of fair reporting of judicial proceedings.
Held: A blanket protection for reporting . .
Cited – Uren v John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd 2-Jun-1966
(High Court of Australia) ‘It seems to us that, in a case where there is no qualified privilege to report or repeat the defamatory statements of others, the whole cohesion of the law of defamation would be destroyed, if it were permissible merely to . .
Cited – Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd HL 1964
Ascertaining Meaning of Words for Defamation
The Daily Telegraph had published an article headed ‘Inquiry on Firm by City Police’ and the Daily Mail had published an article headed ‘Fraud Squad Probe Firm’. The plaintiffs claimed that those articles carried the meaning that they were guilty of . .

Cited by:

Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
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 . .
Cited – Jameel 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 . .
Cited – Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 30-Apr-2008
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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Shah and Another v Standard Chartered Bank CA 2-Apr-1998
The plaintiffs appealed against refusal of orders striking out the defences of justification to their libel action.
Held: The words complained of bore an accusation of money laundering. A plea of justification based upon a reasonable belief in . .
Cited – Chase v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Dec-2002
The defendant appealed against a striking out of part of its defence to the claim of defamation, pleading justification.
Held: The Human Rights Convention had not itself changed the conditions for a plea of justification based upon reasonable . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.89544

Ames and Another v The Spamhaus Project Ltd and Another: QBD 27 Jan 2015

Warby J said: ‘ . . but as practitioners in this field are well aware, it is generally impractical for a claimant to seek out witnesses to say that they read the words complained of and thought the worse of the claimant’

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 127 (QB), [2015] EMLR 13, [2015] 1 WLR 3409, [2015] WLR (D) 51

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Scott v Sampson QBD 1882
The court explained why evidence of particular acts of misconduct on the part of the Plaintiff tending to show his character and disposition should be excluded, saying ‘Both principle and authority seems equally against its admission. It would give . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (1) CA 12-Sep-2017
Defamation – presumption of damage after 2013 Act
The claimant said that the defendant had published defamatory statements which were part of a campaign of defamation brought by his former wife. The court now considered the requirement for substantiality in the 2013 Act.
Held: The defendant’s . .
Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Cited – Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others QBD 23-Nov-2015
Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.541924

Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others: QBD 26 May 2011

The defendant, having been sued for defamation by the claimant social worker pleaded justification and now sought third party disclosure against the hospital involved and against the police of documents which might support the stories it had published.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1364 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 31.17

Defamation, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440196

Cassidy v Daily Mirror: CA 1929

Words which would not otherwise have been defamatory can become so because of circumstances. The intention of the defendant is irrelevant: ‘Liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamor; but on the fact of defamation.’
Scrutton LJ said: ‘I agree with the view expressed arguendo by Sir Montague Smith in the case of Simmons v. Mitchell (1880) 6 App. Cas. 156, 158.: The Judge must decide if the words are reasonably capable of two meanings; if he so decide, the jury must determine which of the two meanings was intended; and by intended I understand that a man is liable for the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the words he used, whether he foresaw them or not.’

Judges:

Russell LJ, Scrutton LJ

Citations:

[1929] 2 KB 331

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Freeguard and Another v Martlet Homes Ltd CA 4-Dec-2008
The claimant complained of a defamation alleged in the words ‘Let me know if he is abusive to you’.
Held: The claim failed. The words complained of did not carry a defamatory meaning. There was no innuendo present: ‘no jury with its feet on . .
Cited – Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 23-Mar-2011
The claimant appealed against directions given in her defamation action against the defendant. It had been said that she owned a house, and the defendant said that this was not defamatory. The claimant said that as the wife of the Mayor of Moscow . .
Cited – Economou v De Freitas QBD 27-Jul-2016
Failed action for defamation on rape allegations
The claimant had been accused by the defendant’s daughter of rape. He was never charged but sought to prosecute her alleging intent to pervert the course of justice. She later killed herself. The defendant sought to have the inquest extended to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.319877

Theedom v Nourish Trading Ltd (T/A CSP Recruitment) and Another: QBD 15 Jun 2016

The claimant sued his former employer and his then manager for libel in emails. The issues in the trial have been whether the defamatory imputations conveyed by the emails were substantially true and, if not, what damages should be awarded to the claimant.
Held: The clam failed. The imputations were substantially true.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1364 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.565544

Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another: QBD 18 Apr 2011

The defendant had been sued in defamation, and now sought release of police records as to the claimant.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 776 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
See Also – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another QBD 24-Oct-2011
The claimant accused the defendant newspaper and journalist of breach of confidence, conversion and Data Protection breach. They said that he had received and published extracts from a confidential internal document leaked to him. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.432864

Mireskandari v Associated Newspapers Ltd: CA 23 Feb 2011

The claimant appealed against orders made in the course of his defamation claim.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, MR, Hooper, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 233

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Derby Magistrates Court Ex Parte B HL 19-Oct-1995
No Breach of Solicitor Client Confidence Allowed
B was charged with the murder of a young girl. He made a confession to the police, but later changed his story, saying his stepfather had killed the girl. He was acquitted. The stepfather was then charged with the murder. At his committal for trial, . .
Cited – General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation v Tanter (‘The Zephyr’) 1984
When considering the extent to which a court should order partial disclosure of legally privileged advice, the test is one of fairness in the conduct of the trial. It should be left to the trial judge to determine whether a party in the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430463

HH Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Eastern Media Group and Another: CA 1 Feb 2011

Application for security for costs on appeal. The claimant’s defamation had been struck out as requiring the court to resolve a non-justiciable question as to religious policy.

Judges:

Sedley, Pitchford LLJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 139

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430358

Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another v Steinberg: QBD 11 Feb 2011

The defendant sought to set aside summary judgment against him in a defamation action relating to a publication on the internet. The action had been heard over several years with the defendant being unrepresented, ill or abroad.
Held: The application failed. None of the issues raised by the defendant had been determinative of the judgment given in 2003, the claimants did not appear to have misled the judge, and the defendant had still produced no evidence to support any possible basis for running his defence.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 48 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hertfordshire Investments Ltd v Bubb and Another CA 25-Jul-2000
When considering an application for a re-hearing of a County Court action in order to consider and admit new evidence, the county court and High Court practice is now the same and the judge should consider the list of questions in Ladd v Marshall, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428709

Clynes v O’ Connor: QBD 13 May 2011

The court considered an action for damages for slander consisting of a few words spoken in an angry outburst and ‘the court must try to achieve a proportionate outcome in litigation which, in itself, appears to be disproportionate and, arguably, to serve no useful purpose at all.’
Held: ‘It should have been disposed of by a prompt apology at the outset and the parties should quite simply have got on with their lives. Nevertheless, there has been an admission that slanders were uttered and that they were heard by a few bystanders. The solicitor’s letters were ignored and costs will inevitably have been incurred in the interim. In all the circumstances, it seems to me that a very modest sum of damages will serve the purpose.’ A later costs award should be similarly proportionate.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1201 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.439675

Mulvaney and Others v The Sporting Exchange Ltd trading as Betfair: 18 Mar 2009

(High Court of Ireland) The defendant ran a betting website which included a forum. The claimant said that the forum had published postings defamatory of him.

Judges:

Clarke J

Citations:

[2009] IEHC 133

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bunt v Tilley and others QBD 10-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, European

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416816

Broadway Approvals Ltd v Odhams Press Ltd (No 2): CA 1965

A company’s mind is not to be assessed on the totality of knowledge of its employees. Malice was not to be established by forensic imagination however eloquently and subtly expressed.
Russell LJ said: ‘the law of libel seems to have characteristics of such complication and subtlety that I wonder whether a jury on retiring can readily distinguish their heads from their heels.’

Judges:

Sellers, Davies and Russell L.JJ

Citations:

[1965] 1 WLR 805

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Rookes v Barnard (No 1) HL 21-Jan-1964
The court set down the conditions for the award of exemplary damages. There are two categories. The first is where there has been oppressive or arbitrary conduct by a defendant. Cases in the second category are those in which the defendant’s conduct . .

Cited by:

Cited – Alexander v Arts Council of Wales CA 9-Apr-2001
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a . .
Cited – Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .
Cited – Telnikoff v Matusevitch HL 14-Nov-1991
The court should decide on whether an article is ‘fact or comment’ purely by reference to the article itself, and not taking into account any of the earlier background coverage. It is the obligation of the relevant commentator to make clear that the . .
Cited – Bray v Deutsche Bank Ag QBD 12-Jun-2008
A former employee of the defendant bank sued in defamation after the bank published a press release about its results which he said was critical of him.
Held: Where there is a real issue as to whether the words are defamatory of the claimant, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages, Company

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.194318

Munster v Lamb: CA 1883

Judges and witness, including police officers are given immunity from suit in defamation in court proceedings.
Fry LJ said: ‘Why should a witness be able to avail himself of his position in the box and to make without fear of civil consequences a false statement, which in many cases is perjured, and which is malicious and affects the character of another? The rule of law exists, not because the conduct of those persons ought not of itself to be actionable, but because if their conduct was actionable, actions would be brought against judges and witnesses in cases in which they had not spoken with malice, in which they had not spoken with falsehood. It is not a desire to prevent actions from being brought in cases where they ought to be maintained that has led to the adoption of the present rule of law; but it is the fear that if the rule were otherwise, numerous actions would be brought against persons who were merely discharging their duty. It must always be borne in mind that it is not intended to protect malicious and untruthful persons, but that it is intended to protect persons acting bona fide, who under a different rule would be liable, not perhaps to verdicts and judgments against them, but to the vexation of defending actions.’
Privilege applies even though what is said is gratuitous and irrelevant to what proves to be an issue in the issue in the trial.
Lord Brett MR said: ‘The rule of law is that what is said in the course of the administration of the law, is privileged; and the reason of that rule covers a counsel even more than a judge or a witness. To my mind it is illogical to argue that the protection of privilege ought not to exist for a counsel, who deliberately and maliciously slanders another person. The reason of the rule is, that a counsel, who is not malicious and who is acting bona fide, may not be in danger of having actions brought against him. If the rule of law were otherwise, the most innocent of counsel might be unrighteously harassed with suits, and therefore it is better to make the rule of law so large that an innocent counsel shall never be troubled, although by making it so large counsel are included who have been guilty of malice and misconduct.’
Brett MR continued, saying: ‘It was at one time suggested that although witnesses could not be held liable to actions upon the case for defamation, that is, for actions for libel and slander, nevertheless they might be held liable in another and different form of action on the case, namely, an action analogous to an action for malicious prosecution, in which it would be alleged that the statement complained of was false to the knowledge of the witness, and was made maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause. This view has been supported by high authority; but it seems to me wholly untenable. If an action for libel or slander cannot be maintained, how can such an action as I have mentioned be maintained, it being in truth an action for defamation in an altered form? Every objection and every reason, which can be urged against an action for libel or slander, will equally apply against the suggested form of action. Therefore, to my mind, the best way to deal with the suggested form of action is to dispose of it in the words of Crompton J in Henderson v Broomhead, where he said: ‘The attempts to obtain redress for defamation having failed, an effort was made in Revis v Smith to sustain an action analogous to an action for malicious prosecution. That seems to have been done in despair.’ Nothing could be more strong, nothing could shew more clearly his entire disbelief in the possibility of supporting that new form of action.’

Judges:

Fry LJ, Sir Balliol Brett MR

Citations:

(1883) 11 QBD 588

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Darker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police HL 1-Aug-2000
The plaintiffs had been indicted on counts alleging conspiracy to import drugs and conspiracy to forge traveller’s cheques. During the criminal trial it emerged that there had been such inadequate disclosure by the police that the proceedings were . .
Cited – Silcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 24-May-1996
The claimant had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock. The only substantial evidence was in the form of the notes of interview he said were fabricated by senior officers. His eventual appeal on this basis was not resisted. He now appealed . .
Cited – Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 20-Jul-2004
The female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board’s treatment of her . .
Cited – Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
Cited – General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA 26-Oct-2006
The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .
Cited – Westcott v Westcott QBD 30-Oct-2007
The claimant said that his daughter in law had defamed him. She answered that the publication was protected by absolute privilege. She had complained to the police that he had hit her and her infant son.
Held: ‘the process of taking a witness . .
Cited – Westcott v Westcott CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
Cited – Iqbal v Mansoor and Others QBD 26-Aug-2011
The claimant sought the disapplication of the limitation period in order to pursue the defendant solicitors, his former employers, in defamation. . .
Cited – Cabassi v Vila 12-Dec-1940
High Court of Australia – The claim sought to sidestep the rule giving immuity to witnesses before a court by alleging a conspiracy to give false evidence.
Held: Starke J said: ‘But it does not matter whether the action is framed as an action . .
Cited – Singh v Moorlands Primary School and Another CA 25-Jul-2013
The claimant was a non-white head teacher, alleging that her school governors and local authority had undermined and had ‘deliberately endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation’ against her as an Asian . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Defamation

Leading Case

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.184730

Rothermere v Times Newspapers Ltd: CA 1973

The court considered whether to order a defamation trial to be heard by judge alone, rather than before a jury.
Held: The criterion that the trial requires a prolonged examination of documents is basic and must be strictly satisfied, and it is not enough merely to show that the trial will be long and complicated.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Looking back on our history, I hold that, if a newspaper has criticised in its columns the great and the powerful on a matter of large public interest — and is then charged with libel — then its guilt or innocence should be tried with a jury, if the newspaper asks for it, even though it requires the prolonged examination of documents.’ and ‘the right given by our constitution to a Defendant who is charged with libel, either in criminal or civil proceedings. Every Defendant has a constitutional right to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury. This right is of the highest importance, especially when the Defendant has ventured to criticise the government of the day, or those who hold authority or power in the state’.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 448

Statutes:

Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Right Hon Aitken MP and Preston; Pallister and Guardian Newspapers Ltd CA 15-May-1997
The defendants appealed against an order that a defamation trial should proced before a judge alone.
Held: ‘Where the parties, or one of them, is a public figure, or there are matters of national interest in question, this would suggest the . .
Cited – Joyce v Sengupta and Another CA 31-Jul-1992
The defendant published an article accusing the plaintiff of theft. Not having funds to launch a claim in libel, the plaintiff obtained legal aid to claim in malicious falsehood. She now appealed against a strike out of that claim.
Held: A . .
Cited – Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, an MP, complained in defamation of the defendant’s description of his rejected expenses claim regarding an assistant’s charitable donation. The paper pleaded a Reynolds defence. The claimant said that when published the defendant knew . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.184760

Adams, MP v Guardian Newspapers Limited: SCS 7 May 2003

Whether statements attributed were defamatory – accusation of leaking email, but email said not to be confidential

Judges:

Lord Reed

Citations:

[2003] ScotCS 131, 2003 SCLR 593, 2003 GWD 16-514, 2003 SLT 1058, : 2003 SCLR 593

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Cherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General SCS 11-Sep-2019
(First Division, Inner House) The reclaimer challenged dismissal of her claim for review of the recent decision for the prorogation of the Parliament at Westminster.
Held: Reclaim was granted. The absence of reasons allowed the court to infer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.183933

Moore v The Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd: SCS 9 Dec 2008

Citations:

[2008] ScotCS CSIH – 66

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Moore v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd SCS 7-Aug-2008
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Davies and Another (T/A All Stars Nursery) v The Scottish Commission for The Regulation of Care SC 27-Feb-2013
The appellants ran a day care nursery regulated under the 2001 Act. The Commission, being concerned at the care provided, sought to revoke the registration in proceedings before the Sherriff’s Court. Before they were concluded, the Commission was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Defamation

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278869

Cleese v Clark: QBD 2003

The court looked at the calculation of damages after an offer of amends under the Act by the defendant.
Held: Such calculations have to be linked to the very different circumstances of each case. Comparisons with awards after jury trial were unhepful: ‘I am not concerned with hypothesising as to what a particular group of 12 lay persons might have done, on the basis of what other groups of lay persons have done in the past’ and ‘I must also have an eye to the levels of compensation awarded in personal injury claims. That is in accordance with the modern practice and was only recognised as acceptable following the Court of Appeal’s decision in John v MGN Ltd [1997] Q.B. 586. It is important to realise that there have been relatively few jury awards over the intervening period. One needs naturally to put to one side some of the well known awards in earlier cases where juries were not invited to take such factors into account. There is, therefore, as we have been told more than once recently, a ‘new landscape’ and assessments have to be made without the baggage of that previous experience.’ He continued: ‘the amount of financial compensation is likely to be assessed partly be reference to the timing, scope and effectiveness of any apology made, or proffered, and it clearly makes sense for the two matters to be on the agenda for discussion at the same time.’
It is appropriate in defamation, as in other areas of the law, for a tortfeasor to ‘take his victim as he finds him’.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2004] EMLR 37, [2003] EWHC 137 (QB)

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1996 3(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – John v MGN Ltd CA 12-Dec-1995
Defamation – Large Damages Awards
MGN appealed as to the level of damages awarded against it namely pounds 350,000 damages, comprising pounds 75,000 compensatory damages and pounds 275,000 exemplary damages. The newspaper contended that as a matter of principle there is no scope in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Nail v Jones, Harper Collins Publications Ltd; Nail v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Wade etc QBD 26-Mar-2004
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 . .
Cited – Nail and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others CA 20-Dec-2004
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 . .
Cited – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers QBD 19-Feb-2008
Complaint was made that an article was defamatory of the owner of Manchester United. The defendant now argued that the game was not worth the candle. The costs vastly exceeded any possible recovery, and it had openly offered vindication, and that . .
Cited – Bowman v MGN Ltd QBD 26-Apr-2010
The claimant complained of an article on the defendant’s web-site. The defendant offered an unqualified offer of amends. The court was asked to settle an amount of compensation. Though the article was removed within a few hours and upon receipt of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.195004

Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd: Admn 1 Jul 2008

The claimant the son of a former fascist leader, sought damages for breach of confidence and a right to a private life after the defendant newspaper published stories alleging that his involvement with prostitutes had included nazi rituals. The defendant argued that the claimant’s right to a private life was overborn by greater public interest.
Held: The claim succeeded. To establish a claim in confidence he had to show a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that that right was not set aside by any balancing exercise involving freedom of expression. There had been a breach of the right of private life by the woman who had recorded the events. Here there was no greater good served by publication. The sado-masochism was consensual and involved no threat or children, and involved no issue of public interest. Nor here were there any public claims of impropriety by the claimant.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2341 (QB), Times 30-Jul-2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Citing:

See Also – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 9-Apr-2008
The claimant sought to continue an interim injunction requiring the defendant not to publish a film on its website.
Held: A claimant’s Article 8 rights may be engaged even where the information in question has been previously publicised. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mosley v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-2009
. .
See Also – Mosley v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2011
The claimant complained of the reporting of a sexual encounter which he said was private.
Held: The reporting of ‘tawdry allegations about an individual’s private life’ does not attract the robust protection under Article 10 afforded to more . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Human Rights, Media

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276983

Tesco Stores Ltd v Guardian News and Media Ltd and Another: QBD 29 Jul 2008

The defendant newspaper published articles making allegations as to the use of offshore tax avoidance arrangements. The claimant sought damages also in malicious falsehood. The defendants sought to rely on an offer of amends served only a few minutes before the defence.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC B14 (QB), [2009] EMLR 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Scott v Samson 1882
. .
Cited – Horrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .
Cited – Polly Peck PLC v Trelford CA 1986
The plaintiffs complained of the whole of one article and parts of two other articles published about them in The Observer. The defamatory sting was that Mr Asil Nadir (the fourth plaintiff) had deceived or negligently misled shareholders, . .
Cited – McKeith v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 14-Jun-2005
. .
Cited – Joyce v Sengupta and Another CA 31-Jul-1992
The defendant published an article accusing the plaintiff of theft. Not having funds to launch a claim in libel, the plaintiff obtained legal aid to claim in malicious falsehood. She now appealed against a strike out of that claim.
Held: A . .
Cited – Rechem International Ltd v Express Newspapers CA 19-Jun-1992
Neill LJ said: ‘A balance has to be struck between the legitimate defence of free speech and free comment on the one hand and on the other hand the costs which may be involved if every peripheral issue is examined and debated at the trial.’ and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hunt v Evening Standard Ltd QBD 18-Feb-2011
The defamation claimant sought that certain paragraphs of the defence should be struck out.
Held: Several paragraphs of the defence were struck out, and others left. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276489

Malik v Newspost Ltd and others: QBD 20 Dec 2007

The claimant, a politician, sought damages after another local politician accused him of using physical intimidation at elections. The defendant claimed a Reynolds privilege.
Held: This was not investigative journalism, and ‘There is no doubt that the subject-matter of these publications is of public interest. Allegations of undermining the democratic process, including by intimidation, are very serious indeed. As is well established, however, that alone does not mean that it is in the public interest to publish any such allegations irrespective of their truth or falsity. ‘ The third defendant was not reporting allegations, but making them. As to the newspaper defendants there was no sufficient attempt to contact the claimant to allow him to give his side of the story, and therefore their defence of qualified privilege failed also.
A person who writes a letter to a newspaper for publication cannot claim Reynolds privilege in respect of the publication of the letter, in the form in which it was sent, to the world at large.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3063 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Adam v Ward HL 1917
The plaintiff, Major Adam MP, falsely attacked General Scobell in a speech in the House of Commons, thus bringing his charge into the national arena. The Army Council investigated the charge, rejected it and directed their secretary, Sir E Ward, the . .
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 . .
Cited – Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v France ECHR 22-Oct-2007
ECHR (Grand Chamber) The court emphasised the public interest in protecting the reputation of those in public life. Regardless of the forcefulness of political struggles, it is legitimate to try to ensure that . .
Cited – George 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 . .
Cited – Roberts 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263260

Warren v The Random House Group Ltd (No. 1): QBD 5 Dec 2007

The defendant applied to amend its defence to the defamation claim. The effect of the proposed amendment had been to withdraw the defence based on its offer of amends and to substitute for it a plea of justification in respect of one of three passages complained of by the claimant, Mr Warren, in its book about the career of the boxer Ricky Hatton.
Held: Refused

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2856 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Warren v The Random House Group Ltd QBD 5-Dec-2007
The court had refused an earlier application by the defendant to amend its defence, after its offer of amends had been accepted, so as to allow it to withdraw that offer and plead justification. The defendant now sought an amendment to allow . .
See Also – Warren v The Random House Group Ltd QBD 20-Dec-2007
The parties had settled a defamation action by means of an offer of amends. The defendant changed his mind about the offer, and the court now considered whether the accepted offer of amends was binding as a contract.
Held: It was a contract, . .
See Also – Warren v The Random House Group Ltd CA 16-Jul-2008
An offer of amends by the defendant had been accepted by the claimant. The defendant then sought to set aside the agreement and to resist the claim on its merits in reliance on a defence of justification. The parties disputed whether such an offer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262182

Warren v The Random House Group Ltd: QBD 5 Dec 2007

The court had refused an earlier application by the defendant to amend its defence, after its offer of amends had been accepted, so as to allow it to withdraw that offer and plead justification. The defendant now sought an amendment to allow substantial revisions to certain particulars, which in turn the claimant sought to strike out.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2860 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Warren v The Random House Group Ltd (No. 1) QBD 5-Dec-2007
The defendant applied to amend its defence to the defamation claim. The effect of the proposed amendment had been to withdraw the defence based on its offer of amends and to substitute for it a plea of justification in respect of one of three . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262121

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another: QBD 12 Oct 2007

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2328 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 27-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 7-Mar-2006
The claimant resided in Romania, and sought damages for libel. The magazine had obtained an order for security for costs. An offer had been made to cover the sum ordered, and no stifling could now happen.
Held: Any order for security costs in . .

Cited by:

See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another QBD 23-Nov-2007
. .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant appealed from a decision that the occasion of publication was not privileged. He sought Reynolds protection.
Held: Appeal dismissed. . .
See Also – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another (No 4) QBD 4-Mar-2009
Orders were sought to strike out part of the defendants defence of justification to an allegation of defamation.
Held: Where there remains the possibility of a jury trial, it becomes especially important to identify the issues the jurors are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261571

Pfeifer v Austria: ECHR 15 Nov 2007

The right to protect one’s honour and reputation is to be treated as falling within the protection of Article 8: ‘a person’s reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity.’

Citations:

12556/03, [2007] ECHR 935, (2007) 48 EHRR 175, 24 BHRC 167

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Mardas 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 . .
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 . .
Cited – In re Guardian News and Media Ltd and Others; HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
Proceedings had been brought to challenge the validity of Orders in Council which had frozen the assets of the claimants in those proceedings. Ancillary orders were made and confirmed requiring them not to be identified. As the cases came to the . .
Cited – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 16-Jun-2010
The claimant said that a review of her book was defamatory and a malicious falsehood. The defendant now sought summary judgment or a ruling as to the meaning of the words complained of.
Held: The application for summary judgment succeeded. The . .
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. . .
See Also – Pfeifer v Austria ECHR 2009
. .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Defamation

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261434

Charman v Orion Group Publishing Group Ltd and others: CA 10 Oct 2007

Judges:

Ward, Sedley, Hooper LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 972, [2008] 1 All ER 750

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others QBD 13-Jul-2006
The claimant police officer sought damages from the defendants who had published a book alleging that he had been corrupt. The defendants claimed privilege under Reynolds and the 1996 Act.
Held: The defence of qualified privilege failed. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 20-Jun-2011
The defendant sought clarification through the court as to the meanings inherent in the words complained of.
Held: The application failed. ‘I do not consider the ordinary reasonable reader would be perverse to conclude that the suspicions . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.259839

Carnegie v Drury; Drury v British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 23 May 2007

The claimant had extended the time for service of his claim for defamation.
Held: The author’s appeal succeeded. To extend time for service, the claimant had to have shown that he had done what he could to take steps to serve the claim within the four months allowed. In this case though the first defendant had not assisted, it was under no duty to do so, or to accept service on behalf of an employee, and steps taken by the claimant after the period had expired were not relevant.

Judges:

Dyson LJ, Smith LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 497, Times 11-Jun-2007, [2007] EMLR 637

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rule 7.6(3)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252505

Roberts and Another v Gable and others: CA 2 Nov 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1585

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Roberts and Another v Gable and others QBD 12-May-2006
The court considered the merits of a Reynolds defence: ‘reporting both sides, in a disinterested way, is an important element in the doctrine of reportage. That is not to say, of course, that a journalist or publisher will be deprived of the . .

Cited by:

See Also – Roberts 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249089

Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another: CA 16 May 2006

Dispute as to quantification of damages for libel. An offer of amends had been made, but the parties could not agree the sum payable.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Keene LJ, Moses LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 540, [2006] 1 WLR 3469, [2006] EMLR 703, [2006] 4 All ER 613

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1996 3(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Dec-2000
Where a defendant in a defamation action sought to reduce the damages payable by arguing that the claimant had a reduced or damaged reputation, he could include evidence about particular facts only where these were directly connected to the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kaschke v Gray and Another QBD 23-Jul-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendants had published a web page which falsely associated her with a terrorist gang in the 1970s. The defendants now sought a strike out of her claim as an abuse saying that a similar . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245867

Berezovsky and Another v Forbes Inc and Another: QBD 19 Jan 1998

A defamation action which between two parties both resident in foreign jurisdictions but based upon a publication with a circulation of 2000 in Britain was to be stayed.

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Berezovsky and Glouchkov v Forbes Inc and Michaels CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant for a magazine article claiming that he was involved in organised crime in Russia. The defendants appealed against the striking out of elements of the defence suggesting lesser meanings. Was meaning a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.78347

Roberts and Another v Gable and others: QBD 12 May 2006

The court considered the merits of a Reynolds defence: ‘reporting both sides, in a disinterested way, is an important element in the doctrine of reportage. That is not to say, of course, that a journalist or publisher will be deprived of the opportunity of such a defence merely by reason of having a particular personal or corporate political stance. What is important in this context is not so much the political stance of the defendant, but rather the way in which the particular dispute or controversy is being reported. There is no doubt, for example, that Mr Gable is far from neutral so far as the BNP is concerned, but that does not mean that he is incapable of objective and disinterested reporting of what goes on within the party, although naturally it may require that any such defence be scrutinised with particular care.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1025 (QB), [2006] EMLR 23, [2006] EMLR 692

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Roberts and Another v Gable and others CA 2-Nov-2006
. .
Appeal from – Roberts 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241662

Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation: QBD 9 Mar 2006

The claimant said that the defendant had accused her of falsifying hospital waiting statistics. The defendant pleaded justification.
Held: There were stark differences in the evidence given by different witnesses. Nevertheless the evidence that there had been wrongdoing was sufficient. Though not all the imputations had been proved to be true, in the light of what had been shown, the remaining untrue implication could not further damage the claimant’s reputation.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 386 (QB), [2006] 1 All ER 154

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – Nina Naicker Gow v Dr Rosemary Harker CA 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had taken a blood sample. The claimant asserted that because the needle had been inserted incorrectly she had suffered damage to her wrist.
Held: Guidance from cases involving allegations of fraud could be relevant when assessing . .
Cited – Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (‘The Ocean Frost’) HL 22-May-1985
Ostensible authority creates estoppel
Apparent authority as agent can arise where an employer by words or conduct has represented that his employee, who has purported to act on behalf of the employer, is authorised to do what he is purporting to do. Ostensible authority depends on a . .
See Also – Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 11-Nov-2005
. .
See Also – Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2-Dec-2005
The defendant reported an enquiry as to the alleged falsification of waiting list figures at a local hospital. It argued for a Reymolds qualified privilege and justification. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Garrett v Halton Borough Council CA 16-Mar-2007
The defendants argued that the conditional fee agreement in use by the claimant’s solicitors was void and so in breach of the rules.
Held: In assessing whether there was any ‘interest’ for the purposes of the Regulation, the court looked to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238933

George 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 Reynolds privilege.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had applied the correct tests for the balance between freedom of the press and the duty not to defame: ‘the newspaper was indeed entitled to report both the finding of the Baghdad documents and their content, but only subject both to giving Mr Galloway a fair opportunity to comment on them and to carrying out such investigation as was appropriate before publication.’ The judge had accepted that the paper had gone beyond mere comment to adopt the allegations, making very serious accusations against him. Whatever the precise line between fact and comment, the allegations which the judge considered not to be protected by qualified privilege were allegations of fact not opinion. The defences of fair comment and qualified provilege had been considered correctly by the judge.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR said: ‘The right to publish must however be balanced against the rights of the individual. That balance is a matter for the judge. It is not a matter for an appellate court. This court will not interfere with the judge’s conclusion after weighing all the circumstances in the balance unless he has erred in principle or reached a conclusion which is plainly wrong.’

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Chadwick LJ, Laws LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 17, Times 06-Feb-2006, [2006] EMLR 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2004
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 . .
Cited – Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .
Cited – Prager And Oberschlick v Austria ECHR 26-Apr-1995
Article 10 requires that journalists be permitted a good deal of latitude in how they present their material and that a degree of exaggeration must also be accepted. The media have a special place in any democratic society as purveyor of information . .
Cited – Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway ECHR 20-May-1999
A newspaper and its editor complained that their right to freedom of expression had been breached when they were found liable in defamation proceedings for statements in articles which they had published about the methods used by seal hunters in the . .
Cited – Selisto v Finland ECHR 16-Nov-2004
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and . .
Cited – Kemsley v Foot HL 25-Feb-1952
Fair Comment Crticism of Newspaper Publisher
The plaintiff alleged that the headline to an article written by the defendant which criticised the behaviour of the Beaverbrook Press, and which read ‘Lower than Kemsley’ was defamatory. The defendant pleaded fair comment. The plaintiff appealed. . .
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 . .
Cited – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .
Cited – Al-Fagih v H H Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd CA 1-Nov-2001
The media’s right to freedom of expression, particularly in the field of political discussion ‘is of a higher order’ than ‘the right of an individual to his good reputation.’ The majority upheld an appeal against a trial judge’s ruling that the . .
Cited – Branson v Bower (No 1) CA 24-May-2001
The test of whether comment was fair comment is simply that of whether the opinion was honestly expressed, and on the basis of facts accurately stated. There is no special rule for imputations of corruption or dishonest motives. Nor is there any . .
Cited – Thoma v Luxembourg ECHR 29-Mar-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award
The Court was . .
Cited – Clarke v Norton 1910
(Victoria) The court considered what was fair comment: ‘More accurately it has been said that the sense of comment is ‘something which is or can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation etc.’ . .
Cited – Lingens v Austria ECHR 8-Jul-1986
Freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, . .
Cited – Busuioc v Moldova ECHR 21-Dec-2004
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 . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others QBD 13-Jul-2006
The claimant police officer sought damages from the defendants who had published a book alleging that he had been corrupt. The defendants claimed privilege under Reynolds and the 1996 Act.
Held: The defence of qualified privilege failed. . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd CA 21-Feb-2007
The defendant journalist had published confidential material obtained from the claimant’s secure hospital at Ashworth. The hospital now appealed against the refusal of an order for him to to disclose his source.
Held: The appeal failed. Given . .
Cited – Roberts 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 . .
Cited – Malik v Newspost Ltd and others QBD 20-Dec-2007
The claimant, a politician, sought damages after another local politician accused him of using physical intimidation at elections. The defendant claimed a Reynolds privilege.
Held: This was not investigative journalism, and ‘There is no doubt . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation v CAFCASS Legal and others FD 30-Mar-2007
Parents of a child had resisted care proceedings, and now wished the BBC to be able to make a TV programme about their case. They applied to the court for the judgment to be released. Applications were also made to have a police officer’s and . .
Doiubted – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237908

Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation: QBD 2 Dec 2005

The defendant reported an enquiry as to the alleged falsification of waiting list figures at a local hospital. It argued for a Reymolds qualified privilege and justification.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2787 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 11-Nov-2005
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Henry v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 9-Mar-2006
The claimant said that the defendant had accused her of falsifying hospital waiting statistics. The defendant pleaded justification.
Held: There were stark differences in the evidence given by different witnesses. Nevertheless the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236710

Strachan v The Gleaner Company Limited and Stokes: PC 25 Jul 2005

PC (Jamacia) The plaintiff challenged an order setting aside a default assessment of damages in his claim for defamation. After the action was lost, two witnesses had come forward who might have allowed a defence of justification. He claimed that the order amounted to an order for a retrial.
Held: A default judgment is one which has not been decided on the merits. The Courts have jealously guarded their power to set aside judgments where there has been no determination on the merits, even to the extent of refusing to lay down any rigid rules to govern the exercise of their discretion. There having been no determination on the merits in relation to liability, the court had had jurisdiction to set aside the judgment for damages to be assessed. ‘Walker J held that he had jurisdiction to make the order he did. If wrong, his decision could be reversed by the Court of Appeal which would be bound without going into the merits to set aside his substantive order as a nullity. As between the parties, however, and unless and until reversed by the Court of Appeal, his decision (both as to jurisdiction and on the merits) was res judicata. As a judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction Smith J had no power to set it aside.’
Lord Millett said that an order made by a judge without jurisdiction was obviously vulnerable, but not wholly without effect. It must be obeyed unless and until set aside.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Sir Charles Mantell

Citations:

[2005] UKPC 33, [2005] 1 WLR 3204

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Citing:

Cited – Mason v Desnoes and Geddes Ltd PC 2-Apr-1990
(Jamaica) A section enabled the Court to set aside a judgment where a party had not appeared at the trial.
Held: The reference to ‘the Court or a Judge’ made it clear that the jurisdiction may be exercised by a judge in chambers and: ‘ . . the . .
Cited – Pugh v Cantor Fitzgerald International CA 7-Mar-2001
Where judgment had been entered with damages to be assessed, the issues which could be raised on the assessment of damages were any directly affecting that assessment, but the defendant could not raise an issue which would impugn the judgement . .
Cited – Alpine Bulk Transport Co Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Co Inc The ‘Saudi Eagle’ CA 1986
The defendants, believing that they had no assets, deliberately allowed an interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed to be entered against them by default, and only after damages had been assessed and final judgment entered, realising that . .
Cited – Dipcon Engineering Services Ltd v Bowen and Another PC 1-Apr-2004
PC Grenada ‘Whilst Saudi Eagle is clear authority, if authority were needed, for the proposition that an application to set aside a default judgment can be made (and, if refused, can then be appealed) . .
Cited – Lunnon v Singh CA 1-Jul-1999
Once judgment has been given, whether after a contested hearing or in default, for damages to be assessed, the defendant cannot dispute liability at the assessment hearing. . .
Cited – Evans v Bartlam HL 1937
The House emphasised the width of the jurisdiction to excuse default in the case of a defendant seeking to have a default judgment set aside and to be let in to defend.
Lord Atkin said: ‘The principle obviously is that, unless and until the . .
Obiter remarks criticised – Craig v Kanssen CA 1943
There had been a failure to serve process where service of process was required. The result was that the order made based upon that process was irregular.
Held: In the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, the Court was entitled to set it . .
Cited – In re Pritchard CA 1963
An originating summons seeking relief was accepted and sealed in a local district registry. It ought to have been sealed in the Central Office of the Royal Courts of Justice. Wilberforce J had held that the originating summons was a nullity and that . .
Cited – In re Padstow Total Loss and Collision Assurance Association CA 1882
The High Court had made a winding up order against an insolvent association under a section of the Companies Act 1862 which applied to unregistered companies. The Act prohibited the formation of an unregistered company with more than twenty members. . .

Cited by:

Cited – O’Connor v Piccott and Another PC 17-Feb-2010
(Jamaica) The parties agreed for the sale of land. The seller sought specific performance by the buyer. The buyer had said there was a problem of title. The appellant had failed to defend the proceedings, and appealed against judgment in default. . .
Cited – Park v Cho and Others ChD 24-Jan-2014
The parties disputed the chairmanship of a charity. The claimant succeeded, but a third party later intervened saying that permission had not first been obtained from the Charity Commission as required. The defendant now appealed against the lifting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229324

Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd: QBD 25 Feb 2005

The court considered whether damages in a defamation action pursued in respect of one publication were to be increased by subsequent publications not themselves the subject of a claim.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 262 (QB), [2006] EMLR 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages for defamation. The claimed that the article had caused very substantial losses (andpound;230 million) to them by affecting their market capitalisation value. The defendant sought to strike out that part of the claim. . .
See also – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 25-Feb-2005
The court considered whether damages in a defamation action pursued in respect of one publication were to be increased by subsequent publications not themselves the subject of a claim. . .

Cited by:

See also – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 25-Feb-2005
The court considered whether damages in a defamation action pursued in respect of one publication were to be increased by subsequent publications not themselves the subject of a claim. . .
See Also – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 16-Dec-2005
The claimants sought disclosure of documents in their claim for damages for defamation against the respondent. The defendants said that the documents sought, namely reporter’s notes were not relevant to the defamation alleged. There was a request . .
Cited – Hays Plc v Hartley QBD 17-May-2010
Mr Hartley operated a news agency, and provided to the publisher of the Sunday Mirror, MGN Ltd, allegations of racism that had been levelled at the claimant company by former employees. The allegations were reported in an article headed ”KKK . .
Cited – Lewis v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Others (Rev 1) QBD 31-Mar-2011
The defendant sought a ruling on the meaning of the words but using section 69(4) of the 1981 Act. The claimant solicitor was acting in complaints as to the unlawful interception of celebrity voicemails by agents of the press. There had been debate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223859

Nail and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others: CA 20 Dec 2004

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.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice May

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1708, [2005] 1 All ER 1040

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1996 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Horrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .
Cited – Milne v Express Newspapers CA 28-May-2004
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 . .
Cited – Dingle v Associated Newspapers HL 1964
The plaintiff complained of an article written in the Daily Mail which included the reporting of a report of a Parliamentary select committee. The reporting of the select committee’s report was privileged under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. At . .
Cited – Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case.
Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not . .
Cited – Abu v MGN Ltd QBD 2003
There should be nothing in any sense ‘rough and ready’ about the assessment of the claimant’s reputation under the offer of amends procedure in the 1996 Act. If compensation is not agreed it should be determined by the court on the same principles . .
Cited – John v MGN Ltd CA 12-Dec-1995
Defamation – Large Damages Awards
MGN appealed as to the level of damages awarded against it namely pounds 350,000 damages, comprising pounds 75,000 compensatory damages and pounds 275,000 exemplary damages. The newspaper contended that as a matter of principle there is no scope in . .
Cited – Cleese v Clark QBD 2003
The court looked at the calculation of damages after an offer of amends under the Act by the defendant.
Held: Such calculations have to be linked to the very different circumstances of each case. Comparisons with awards after jury trial were . .
Cited – Mawdsley v Guardian Newspapers Ltd QBD 2002
The court asked whether the summary judgment procedure under sections 8 to 10 of the 1996 Act, with its ceiling of andpound;10,000, was appropriate in a case in which a jury after a trial might award andpound;30,000. He decided that it was . .
Cited – Gorman v Mudd CA 15-Oct-1992
The plaintiff, a Conservative MP, complained of a ‘mock press release’ written and circulated by the defendant, Mudd, a prominent member of the local community and chairman of the Billericay Conservative Businessman’s Association, to ninety-one . .
Cited – Bonnick v Morris, The Gleaner Company Ltd and Allen PC 17-Jun-2002
(Jamaica) The appellant sought damages from the respondent journalists in defamation. They had claimed qualified privilege. The words alleged to be defamatory were ambiguous.
Held: The publishers were protected by Reynolds privilege. The court . .
Cited – Kiam v MGN Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
Where a court regards a jury award in a defamation case as excessive, a ‘proper’ award can be substituted for it is not whatever sum court thinks appropriate, wholly uninfluenced by jury’s view, but the highest award which a jury could reasonably . .
Cited – Kiam v Neill and Another (No 2) CA 26-Jul-1996
An allegation of insolvency was made against a well known businessman. An apology in agreed terms was published after 3 weeks.
Held: A jury award of 45,000 in damages was not excessive for a libel despite an apology having been given. The . .
Cited – Houston v Smith CA 16-Dec-1993
Doctors operated within the same building. The defendant falsely accused the plaintiff of harassing her and her staff, groping them and fondling them sexually. The allegation was made in the hearing of several of the plaintiff’s patients in the . .
Appeal from – Nail v Jones, Harper Collins Publications Ltd; Nail v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Wade etc QBD 26-Mar-2004
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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bowman v MGN Ltd QBD 26-Apr-2010
The claimant complained of an article on the defendant’s web-site. The defendant offered an unqualified offer of amends. The court was asked to settle an amount of compensation. Though the article was removed within a few hours and upon receipt of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220494

George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd: QBD 2 Dec 2004

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 andpound;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.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2786 (QB), Times 13-Jan-2005, [2005] EMLR 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL QBD 20-Jan-2004
It is almost inevitable that in a Reynolds privilege case to be tried by jury there will be presented to them a list of questions, sometimes no doubt formidably long. The object is to enable the judge to have the factual matrix upon which to make . .
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 . .
Cited – Lingens v Austria ECHR 8-Jul-1986
Freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, . .
Cited – Bonnick v Morris, The Gleaner Company Ltd and Allen PC 17-Jun-2002
(Jamaica) The appellant sought damages from the respondent journalists in defamation. They had claimed qualified privilege. The words alleged to be defamatory were ambiguous.
Held: The publishers were protected by Reynolds privilege. The court . .
Cited – Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 29-May-2002
A libel defence of justification which was based on ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion’ must focus on conduct of claimant that gives rise to suspicion. It was not permissible to rely upon hearsay. Defendant may not plead as ‘grounds’ material which . .
Cited – Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 31-Mar-1995
The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual . .
Cited – Al-Fagih v H H Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd CA 1-Nov-2001
The media’s right to freedom of expression, particularly in the field of political discussion ‘is of a higher order’ than ‘the right of an individual to his good reputation.’ The majority upheld an appeal against a trial judge’s ruling that the . .
Cited – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .
Cited – Branson v Bower (No 1) CA 24-May-2001
The test of whether comment was fair comment is simply that of whether the opinion was honestly expressed, and on the basis of facts accurately stated. There is no special rule for imputations of corruption or dishonest motives. Nor is there any . .
Cited – Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland ECHR 25-Jun-1992
Two newspaper articles reported widespread rumours of brutality by the Reykjavik police. These rumours had some substantiation in fact, a policeman had been convicted recently. The purpose of the articles was to promote an investigation by an . .
Cited – Selisto v Finland ECHR 1-Oct-2004
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 . .
Cited – Thoma v Luxembourg ECHR 29-Mar-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award
The Court was . .
Cited – Affaire Radio France et autres v France ECHR 30-Mar-2004
A person’s right to protect his/her reputation is among the rights guaranteed by ECHR Article 8 as an element of the right to respect for private life. . .
Cited – Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway ECHR 20-May-1999
A newspaper and its editor complained that their right to freedom of expression had been breached when they were found liable in defamation proceedings for statements in articles which they had published about the methods used by seal hunters in the . .
Cited – Prager And Oberschlick v Austria ECHR 26-Apr-1995
Article 10 requires that journalists be permitted a good deal of latitude in how they present their material and that a degree of exaggeration must also be accepted. The media have a special place in any democratic society as purveyor of information . .
Cited – Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
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 . .
Cited – Cook v Alexander CA 1974
One may comment upon reports which are themselves the subject of privilege. A report to be fair and accurate must constitute a fair presentation of that which took place on the relevant occasion. It need not be a verbatim report. It can be selective . .
Cited – Brent Walker Group plc v Time Out Limited CA 1991
The defendant published two articles with comment adverse to W. The plaintiff complained that this associated him and his company with violent organised crime. The defence to the defamation action said the words complained of were fair comment, and . .
Cited – Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .
Cited – Heil v Rankin, Rees v Mabco (102) Ltd, Schofield v Saunders and Taylor Ltd and Other cases CA 23-Mar-2000
The Law Commission had recommended that the general level of damages awarded for pain suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury cases should be raised. The Court now considered several cases on the issue.
Held: The court would do so. . .
Cited – John v MGN Ltd CA 12-Dec-1995
Defamation – Large Damages Awards
MGN appealed as to the level of damages awarded against it namely pounds 350,000 damages, comprising pounds 75,000 compensatory damages and pounds 275,000 exemplary damages. The newspaper contended that as a matter of principle there is no scope in . .
Cited – Gleaner Company Ltd and Another v Abrahams PC 14-Jul-2003
Punitive Defamation Damages Order Sustained
(Jamaica) The appellants challenged a substantial award of damages for defamation. They had wrongfully accused a government minister of corruption. There was evidence of substantial financial loss. ‘For nearly sixteen years the defendants, with all . .
Cited – Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-1995
The applicant had been required to pay andpound;124,900 as security for the respondent’s costs as a condition of his appeal against an award of damages in a defamation case.
Held: It followed from established case law that article 6(1) did not . .
Cited – Lillie and Reed v Newcastle City Council, Barker, Jones, Saradjian, Wardell QBD 30-Jul-2002
The applicants sought judicial review of a report prepared for the respondent. They had been accused of child abuse whilst working as nursery assistants.
Held: The report was fundamentally flawed, and almost deliberately designed to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No 2) CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for an article published by the defendant, who argued that as a corporation, the claimant corporation needed to show special damage, and also that the publication had qualified privilege.
Held: ‘It is an established . .
Appeal from – George 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 . .
Cited – Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others QBD 13-Jul-2006
The claimant police officer sought damages from the defendants who had published a book alleging that he had been corrupt. The defendants claimed privilege under Reynolds and the 1996 Act.
Held: The defence of qualified privilege failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219936

Gahir v Bansal: QBD 3 Aug 2016

Libel action arising from two hand-written letters alleged to have been written by the Defendant and sent by him to various members of the Sikh community in the midlands and, in particular, to members of the Gurdwara to which the Claimant and Defendant each belong. The recipients are said to have included among others the Trustees, the Management Committee and the Executive Committee. The defendant denied authorship.

Judges:

Sir David Eady

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2041 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.569078

Barron and Others v Collins: QBD 16 May 2016

The defendant MEP sought an order staying the defamation action brought against her by four MPs from the Rotherham area. She said that as an MEP she had a procedural immunity. She had informed the European Commission that she sought the protection which might be available.
Held: The right approach to the decision in Marra is to treat the term ‘informed’ as requiring a formal communication to the court from the Parliament. There is good reason for that approach, as it gives effect to the underlying principle which is one of co-operation between the Parliament and the national bodies, in their capacities as institutions. Further, this approach allows the Parliament a role in assessing a request for the defence of privilege before it decides to communicate with a national court. The stay should be granted pending the reply of the Parliament, but it would then be for the national court to make the decision.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1166 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Criminal Proceedings Against Zwartveld and Others ECJ 13-Jul-1990
Europa European Communities – Institutions – Obligations – Duty to cooperate with national authorities acting to ensure respect for Community law – Implementation – Disclosure of documents and authorization of . .
Cited – Marra v De Gregorio C-200/07 ECJ 21-Oct-2008
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling European- Parliament – Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament containing insulting remarks Claim for non-pecuniary damages Immunity of Members of the European . .
Cited – Patriciello (Privileges And Immunities) ECJ 9-Jun-2011
ECJ Member of the European Parliament – Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities – Scope of the concept of’opinion expressed in the exercise of parliamentary duties’ – Criminal proceedings for . .
See Also – Barron MP and Others v Collins MEP QBD 29-Apr-2015
Trial of preliminary issues in for defamation. The claimants, MPs for Rotherham areas, said that a speech by the defendant to the UKIP conference and repeated on TV contained assertions defamatory of them.
Held: The words complained of bore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, European, Constitutional

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.564497

Reavey and others v Century Newspapers Ltd and Another: QBNI 4 May 2001

The plaintiffs sought orders against the defendants and each of them to enable the plaintiffs to sue for defamation or malicious falsehood certain persons whose identities are at present unknown to the plaintiffs but which are allegedly known to the defendants and each of them and who were the source of information relayed by the two defendants in Parliament and under absolute privilege. The plaintiffs aver that the defendants and each of them are, or have been, in possession of certain documents and information which would identify those persons thus enabling the plaintiffs to sue them for defamation.

Citations:

[2001] NIQB 17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Defamation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202146

McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: CA 12 Jun 2001

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Chadwick LJ, Longmore LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 871, [2001] EMLR 34

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Limited; Clarke and Neil (1) CA 25-Nov-1998
. .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (2) CA 26-May-1999
The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be . .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others CA 7-Jun-2000
The new civil procedure rules did not change the basic rules of evidence. The old rule prevented a party putting in evidence a witness statement which he knew conflicted substantially with the case he wished to place before the jury, and then be . .

Cited by:

See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd; Liam Clarke and and Andrew Neil (No 3) CA 12-Jun-2001
In defamation proceedings the defendant had invited one issue to be left to the jury. After losing the case, the defendant sought to appeal, arguing that the jury’s verdict was perverse. It was held that such an appeal amounted to an abuse of . .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 4) CA 3-Jul-2001
The fact that a defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing a case after an offer of settlement, was not a reason for not awarding costs to be paid on an indemnity basis. Such an award had no penal element, and did not first require any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Defamation

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201163