Telnikoff v Matusevitch; 24 May 1989

References: Unreported, 24-May-89
Coram: Drake J
The plaintiff claimed in libel. Drake J upheld a submission that there was no case to go before the jury, in respect that (1) any reasonable jury properly directed would be bound to sustain the defence of fair comment, and (2) there was no evidence of express malice.
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Telnikoff -v- Matusevitch CA ([1991] 1 QB 102)
    The court considered the element of malice in a defamation defence: ‘If a piece of evidence is equally consistent with malice and the absence of malice, it cannot as a matter of law provide evidence on which the jury could find malice. The judge . .
  • At first instance – Telnikoff -v- Matusevitch HL ([1992] 2 AC 343, Bailii, [1992] UKHL 2)
    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 . .