Reynolds privilege rightly rejected in Cypriot politician’s claim: The European Court of Human Rights dismissed a complaint that a Reynolds privilege defence had been wrongly rejected by the Cypriot courts. The Applicants had made serious allegations against a politician and had failed to substantiate them.
|
Single-meaning and repetition rules disapplied where part of article protected by statutory qualified privilege: Where part of the article complained of was protected by statutory qualified privilege, the meaning of the remainder of the article had to be determined without application of the repetition rule; an exception to the single-meaning rule was required.
|
Detailed comparison with personal injury awards not appropriate: When determining damages for libel it was not appropriate to make detailed comparisons with personal injury awards, although they could be used as a general test for reasonableness, as could previous awards made by judges (as opposed to juries). Defendants means were irrelevant.
|
Reports by Charity Commission protected by traditional qualified privilege: The publication by the Charity Commission on its website of the results of an inquiry it had carried out under s.8 of the Charities Act 1993 into a charity was published on an occasion of traditional qualified privilege and there was no need to consider Reynolds privilege.
|
Norwich Pharmacal applications for identities of website posters reviewed: A judge had been entitled not to accede to a request for orders for the disclosure of the IP addresses of computers used to make allegedly defamatory remarks on a financial services web forum.
|
Limitation period disapplied: The court’s discretion to disapply the limitation period under s.32A of the Limitation Act 1980 was excercised where there was evidence that the Defendant was involved in the publication of a number of very serious defamatory statements on the internet and it was important that all those responsible were brought before it.
|
Fair comment – errors of fact may not be fatal; other defamatory publications cannot be relied upon in mitigation: In a libel claim concerning allegations of the irresponsible sale of vitamins to treat HIV and AIDS, the Claimant applied to strike out various parts of the defence. Tugendhat J held, inter alia, that an error in the facts stated in the article might not be fatal to a fair comment defence by virtue of s.6 of the Defamation Act 1952, and that previous articles about which the Claiman ...
|
Qualified privilege – Article 8 considerations may limit scope of privilege: Summary judgment for the defendants on the basis of a plea of qualified privilege was not granted in a claim for slander as, inter alia, it was arguable that the words complained of engaged the claimant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention and/or the Data Protection Act 1998, and that accordingly the test for qualified privilege might need to be reconsidered.
|
Abuse of process – claims against other defendants can be considered: Slander proceedings were brought against two defendants over statements said to have been made in a pizza delivery restaurant. The defendants sought summary judgment, alternatively that the claim be struck out as an abuse of process. Summary judgment was refused as the claim could be rescued by an appropriate witness statement; but the claim was an abuse of process given the likely damages, the cost of proceedings and other cl ...
|
Qualified privilege – Reynolds privilege available to non-media publishers: A politician who made a defamatory speech at a public meeting could rely upon Reynoldsprivilege if the subject matter was in the public interest and he had acted responsibly in publishing the words.
|
| 1 2 |