Tag: Defamation

Mary Griffiths v Lewis; 27 Apr 1846

References: [1846] EngR 593, (1846) 8 QB 841, (1846) 115 ER 1091
Links: Commonlii
Where a declaration in slander sets out words alleged to have been uttered, some in one discourse, and the remainder in a second discourse, and there are in form but two counts, each containing only the words alleged to have been uttered in one discourse, the declaration will be treated as containing only two counts, though each of such two counts contains a separate allegations of the uttering of different words in the particular discourse. Therefore, if in each count there be any words set out which are slanderous, judgment for plaintiff will not be arrested after verdict, though the damages be general and some of the separate allegations recite only words not actionable.
The original publisher of a defamatory statement had no privilege to repeat it when asked for an explanation.
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Watts -v- Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling & Lom CA (Times 22-Sep-95, [1997] QB 650, Bailii, [1995] EWCA Civ 45, [1996] 2 WLR 427, [1996] EMLR 1, [1996] 1 All ER 152)
    The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying . .

The Duke Of Brunswick v Harmer; 21 Jun 1850

References: [1850] EngR 681, (1850) 3 Car & K 10, (1850) 175 ER 441
Links: Commonlii
If JH and MY be registered at the stamp office as ‘the sole proprietors’ of a newspaper, ‘that is to say, the said JH as legal owner as mortgagee, and MY as owner of the equity of redemption,’ this is sufficient to fix JH as a proprietor of the newspaper in an action for a libel contained in it. In an alleged libel, the writer suggested the propriety of the plaintiff ‘withdrawing into his own natural and sinister obscurity,’ the word ‘natural’ being printed in italics. Held, that the plaintiff could not ask a witness what he understood by the word ‘natural’ thus printed, but that the jury might look at the paper and form their opinion as to the meaning.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Duke of Brunswick -v- Harmer QBD ((1849) 14 QB 185, [1849] EngR 915, Commonlii, (1849) 117 ER 75)
    On 19 September 1830 an article was published in the Weekly Dispatch. The limitation period for libel was six years. The article defamed the Duke of Brunswick. Seventeen years after its publication an agent of the Duke purchased a back number . .

Bolton v O’Brien; 11 Jan 1885

References: (1885) QB Div vol XVI LR Ir 97
Coram: May CJ, O’Brien J
Ratio On a motion for a new trial in a claim in defamation, a majority of the court held that passages in the same newspaper which were not complained of might be adduced in evidence to illustrate the meaning of the passages complained of. At the trial, both counsel had read and commented on the various passages without objection.
May CJ said: ‘I have reason to think that Mr. Justice O’Brien entertains doubts as to the legal propriety of adducing in evidence other passages in the same newspaper in order to illustrate the meaning of the passages charged to be libellous. I cannot say that I concur in those doubts. If the language be ambiguous as to the nature of the felony imputed in this particular passage, it appears to me that other passages in the same newspaper, by the same person, dealing with these matters are properly admissible in order to remove such ambiguity.’
Ratio O’Brien J dissented, saying that such passages other than those complained of were not evidence to affect the defamatory sense unless ‘directly referred to, and in that way virtually made part of the libel.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dee -v- Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 924 (QB))
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 20-Apr-16
Ref: 408770

Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton; 17 Apr 2008

References: [2008] NSWCA 66
Links: Austlii
Coram: Spigelman CJ Hodgson JA McColl JA
Austlii (Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal) DEFAMATION – nature of- actual disparagement of the plaintiff’s reputation – reputation includes general character and standing and trade, business or professional reputation – DEFAMATION – what is defamatory – requires publication likely to cause ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general, to think the less of plaintiff – DEFAMATION – nature of injury to business reputation – whether to be determined by reference to whether publication likely to cause ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general, to think the less of plaintiff – JURY – directions to jury as to standards by which to determine whether an imputation injures plaintiff’s trade, business or professional reputation
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dee -v- Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 924 (QB))
    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 . .

Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert Cheng; 13 Nov 2000

References: [2001] EMLR 777, [2000] 3 HKLRD 418, [2000] HKCFA 35
Links: hklii
Coram: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Sir Denys Roberts NPJ and Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead NPJ
(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 hearer should be in a position to judge for himself how far the comment was well founded’ and
‘The purpose for which the defence of fair comment exists is to facilitate freedom of expression by commenting upon matters of public interest. This accords with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. And it is in the public interest that everyone should be free to express his own, honestly held views on such matters, subject always to the safeguards provided by the objective limits mentioned above. These safeguards ensure that defamatory comments can be seen for what they are, namely, comments as distinct from statements of fact. They also ensure that those reading the comments have the material enabling them to make up their own minds on whether they agree or disagree’.
The defence of honest comment is available even if the comment was made with intent to injure, as where a politician seeks to damage his political opponent.
The comment must be on a matter of public interest, recognisable as comment, be based on true or privileged facts, indicate the facts on which the comment is based, and ‘must be one which could have been made by an honest person, however prejudiced he might be, and however exaggerated or obstinate his views.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Myerson -v- Smith’s Weekly ((1923) 24 SR (NSW) 20)
    (New South Wales) The court considered the distinction between fact and comment. Ferguson J said: ‘To say that a man’s conduct was dishonourable is not comment, it is a statement of fact. To say that he did certain specific things and that his . .
  • Cited – Gardiner -v- Fairfax ((1942) 42 SR (NSW) 171)
    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 . .
  • Cited – London Artists Ltd -v- Littler CA ([1969] 2 QB 375, [1968] 1 WLR 607, Bailii, [1968] EWCA Civ 3, [1969] 2 All ER 193)
    The defence of fair comment on matters of public interest is not to be defined too closely. Lord Denning MR said: ‘Whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going . .
  • Cited – Kemsley -v- Foot HL ([1952] AC 345)
    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 Hemsley’ was defamatory. The defendant pleaded fair comment.
    Held: The article . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Keays -v- Guardian Newspapers Limited, Alton, Sarler QBD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 1565 (QB))
    The claimant asserted defamation by the defendant. The parties sought a decision on whether the article at issue was a comment piece, in which case the defendant could plead fair comment, or one asserting fact, in which case that defence would not . .
  • Cited – Panday -v- Gordon PC (Bailii, [2005] UKPC 36, PC)
    (Trinidad and Tobago) A senior politician had accused an opponent of pseudo-racism. The defendant asserted that he had a defence under the constitution, allowing freedom of political speech.
    Held: The appeal failed. The statements were . .
  • Cited – Lowe -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD ([2006] 3 All ER 357, Bailii, [2006] EWHC 320 (QB), Times 29-Mar-06, [2007] QB 580)
    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 – Associated Newspapers Ltd -v- Burstein CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 600, [2007] EMLR 21, [2007] EMLR 571, [2007] 4 All ER 319, [2001] 1 WLR 579)
    The newspaper appealed an award of damages for defamation after its theatre critic’s review of an opera written by the claimant. The author said the article made him appear to sympathise with terrorism.
    Held: The appeal succeeded. Keene LJ . .
  • Cited – Blackwell -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd and others QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 3098 (QB))
    The claimant sought damages saying that a newspaper article published by the defendant was defamatory. He was the manager of Leeds United Football club, and was said to have lost the dressing room.
    Held: The claimant was entitled to summary . .
  • Cited – CC -v- AB QBD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 3083 (QB), [2007] EMLR 11, [2007] Fam Law 591, [2007] 2 FLR 301)
    The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant and others from making it known that the claimant had had an adulterous relationship with the defendant’s wife. . .
  • Cited – Thornton -v- Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 2863 (QB))
    The claimant sought damages for an article in the defendant’s newspaper, a review of her book which said she had falsely claimed to have interviewed artists including the review author and that the claimant allowed interviewees control over what was . .
  • Limited – Spiller and Another -v- Joseph and Others SC (Bailii, [2010] UKSC 53, UKSC 2009/0210, SC Summary, SC, [2010] WLR (D) 310, WLRD, [2010] 3 WLR 1791, Bailii Summary, [2011] 1 All ER 947, [2011] ICR 1, [2011] EMLR 11)
    The defendants had published remarks on its website about the reliability of the claimant. When sued in defamation, they pleaded fair comment, but that was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
    Held: The defendants’ appeal succeeded, and the fair . .

Crookes v Wikimedia Foundation Inc; 27 Oct 2008

References: 2008 BCSC 1424
Links: Canlii
Coram: Kelleher J
(Supreme Court of British Columbia) The claimant sought damages in defamation from an article published by the defendant on the internet. The court was asked whether the contents of an article to which a hyper-link was provided should be taken into account in identifying the claimant.
Held: Whilst hyperlinking could sometimes found an action for defamation, in this case, the publcation of the link did not amount to publcation in defamation.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Islam Expo Ltd -v- The Spectator (1828) Ltd and Another QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 2011 (QB))
    The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant in respect of its web-site. It said that the use of hyperlinks to third party sites was sufficient to identify the claimant and associate it with the allegations made.
    Held: The . .

Crampton v Nugawela; 23 Dec 1996

References: [1997] Aust Torts Reports 81-416, (1996) 41 NSWLR 176, [1996] NSWSC 651
Links: Austlii
Coram: Mahoney ACJ, Handley JA, Giles AJA
(Supreme Court of New South Wales) Defamation – Damages – Aggravated and general damages – Economic loss with respect to professional standing – Principles relevant to assessment of damages for defamation – Relationship to damages for serious personal injury
When considering the likelihood of repetition of a libel once published, the court spoke of ‘the grapevine effect’.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cairns -v- Modi CA ([2012] WLR(D) 302, Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1382, WLRD, Gazette)
    Three appeals against the levels of damages awards were heard together, and the court considered the principles to be applied.
    Held: In assessing compensation following a libel, the essential question was how much loss and damage did the . .