Defamation

Davison v Habeeb & Ors [2011] EWHC 3031 (QB)

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:08:52 GMT

Service out on Google.Inc set aside where Claimant's evidence only that five persons within England had read the words complained of:-

In a claim relating, in part, to publications on websites hosted by Google Inc, an order allowing service out of the jurisdiction on that organisation was set aside where the continuance of the proceedings against it, on the basis of publication to five individuals who were not known to her, nor she to them, and in circumstances in which no worthwhile vindication could possibly be obtained, would be disproportionate and an abuse of the process. Further the Claimant had no real prospect of showing that the notification of her complaint to Google Inc fixed it with actual knowledge of unlawful activity or information, or made it aware of facts or circumstances from which it would have been apparent to it that the activity or information was unlawful, such as would overcome the defence under Reg.19 of the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002. An application for summary judgment on the basis that Google Inc was not a publisher at common law of the website on blogger.com was refused.

The Law Society & Ors v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 (QB)

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:07:27 GMT

'Solicitors from Hell' website closed down:-

The publication of words complained of on the Defendant's 'Solicitors from Hell' constituted libel, harassment, and breach of the Data Protection Act in respect of the members of the Second Claimant (a firm named on the site) and the Third Claimant (an individual solicitor named on the site). Further, the Second and Third Claimants (although not the First Claimant) could act in a representative capacity n behalf of all those currently featuring on the website and those who might feature in future in respect of their claims for harassment and breach of the Data Protection Act (although not in libel). Both the private rights of the interested parties and the interests of the public at large were strongly supportive of an injunction prohibiting further publication of the website.

Waterson v Stephen Lloyd MP & Anor [2011] EWHC 3197 (QB)

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:06:43 GMT

'Expenses scandal' statements were factual allegations, not comments.

References to the Claimant as an 'Expenses Scandal' MP in campaign newsletters designed to look like local newspapers distributed by Eastbourne Liberal Democrats before the 2010 General Election were statements of fact and therefore the defence of honest comment was not available. Further, the statements complained of did not mean merely that the Claimant had made legitimate use of the MPs' expenses system, but rather that he had abused the system for his own advantage. Judgment was therefore entered for the Claimant.

Adelson & Anor v Anderson & Anor [2011] EWHC 2497 (QB)

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:55:51 GMT

A libel action was struck out as an abuse of process after periods of delay of 15 months prior to service of particulars of claim and of a further three years between settlement of a related libel action and revival of the claim. That delay demonstrated a lack of intention on the part of the Claimant to prosecute the action, and that he did not regard the allegations as particularly grave. Success for him now would achieve very little indeed, and there was no real prospect of an injunction being granted. Accordingly, what was at stake did not justify the deployment of the court's resources.

Modi & Anor v Clarke [2011] EWCA Civ 937

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:02:56 GMT

An email alleging that the Claimants had plotted "to destroy world cricket's structure and especially that in England, and create a new rebel league" was, contrary to the finding of the judge at first instance, capable of bearing a defamatory meaning of acting dishonourably and disloyally and in breach of regulations, and not simply in a robust competitive manner.

Al-Amoudi v Kifle [2011] EWHC 2037 (QB)

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:02:01 GMT

An article published on the internet to several thousand readers within the jurisdiction alleging that, inter alia, the Claimant had married off his daughter, Sarah (then aged only 13) to an elderly and disabled senior member of the Saudi royal family, as a gift; was seeking to have her and her daughter killed; had probably had her former lover killed; and was reasonably suspected of financing international terrorism warranted an award of damages for libel of £175,000

Lait v Evening Standard Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 859

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:00:52 GMT

An honest comment defence was bound to succeed in respect of the primary defamatory meaning of an article criticising the Claimant MP over her expenses claim. Any residual claim was struck out as a Jameel abuse of process.

Gail Munro v. Derek Brown [2011] CSOH 117

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:30:00 GMT

The pursuer was an accomplished curler, who was the skipper of the Scottish Ladies Curling team, who were competing at the World Ladies Curling Championships in Vernon, Canada in March 2008. The defender was the national coach of the team. Following poor results at the Championships, the defender told the pursuer that she was being dropped from the team for future matches. Latterly, at a press conference, the defender had told the media that the pursuer had been given the opportunity to play in these latter matches, but had refused to do so. This allegation was widely reported in the press and other media, inferring that the pursuer had “refused to play for Scotland”.

In this action, the pursuer sued for defamation, averring that the defender’s statement at the press conference was false and defamatory. The pursuer submitted that not only had she been deeply upset by the allegations, but that they had affected her reputation and standing in the curling sporting world, and had deeply affected her confidence in social situations. The defender pled that the statements were true.

Having heard evidence at proof, the court found that the allegations made against the pursuer were indeed false and defamatory. The court awarded total damages for solatium at the sum of £21,950.

Wallis & Anor v Meredith [2011] EWHC 75 (QB) 28/01/2011

Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:02:37 GMT

Libel claim over letter to solicitor struck out as abuse of process

Brady v Norman [2011] EWCA Civ 107 09/02/2011

Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:01:49 GMT

Disapplication of limitation period - defamation claims likely to raise different considerations to personal injury claims so as to warrant “different manifestations of the application of the same principles”

Woodbridge v Stapleton, Unreported, 20/01/2011

Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:01:07 GMT

Libel claim dismissed due to qualified privilege defence and lack of proportionality as no real damage to reputation

Ernst & Young Llp & Ors v Coomber & Anor [2010] EWHC 2837 (QB) 08/11/2010

Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:06:27 GMT

Summary disposal under ss.8-10 Defamation Act 1996 granted in libel claim

Ifedha v Archant Regional Ltd [2010] EWHC 2819 (QB) 08/11/2010

Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:59:06 GMT

Swingers’ club libel claim struck out as inadequately pleaded and worth no more than a nominal amount

Ronaldo v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 2710 (QB) 27/10/2010

Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:58:15 GMT

Libel claim against second newspaper after settling claim against first over similar allegations was not an abuse of process

McLaughlin & Ors v London Borough of Lambeth & Anor [2010] EWHC 2726 (QB) 02/11/2010

Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:55:55 GMT

School headmasters and governors permitted to bring libel claim

Taylor v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2010] EWHC 2494 (QB) 11/10/2010

Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:55:00 GMT

Libel claim not bound to fail or abuse of process on admitted facts

Farrall v Kordowski [2010] EWHC 2436 (QB) 05/10/2010

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:43:08 GMT

Libel injunction granted against ‘Solicitors From Hell’ website

Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corp & Ors [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB) 01/10/2010

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:42:14 GMT

Company awarded £50,000 general damages for postings on internet forums

Islam Expo Ltd v The Spectator (1828) Ltd & Pollard [2010] EWHC 2011 (QB) 30/07/2010

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:41:30 GMT

Hyperlinked material considered as context in determining whether words complained of capable of referring to Claimant

Henderson v The London Borough of Hackney & The Learning Trust [2010] EWHC 1651 (QB)

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:51:06 GMT

Claim struck out where publication on occasion of qualified privilege and no evidence of malice

Fiddes v Channel Four Television Corporation & Ors (No 2) [2010] EWCA Civ 730

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:50:24 GMT

Ruling for trial by judge alone upheld

Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd (No 2) [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB)

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:49:42 GMT

Definition of defamatory includes threshold of seriousness

Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd (No 2), [2010] EWCA Civ 609, 02/06/10

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:44:14 GMT

Single meaning rule not applicable to malicious falsehood claims

Underhill v Corser, [2010] EWHC 1195 (QB), 27/05/10

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:42:32 GMT

No qualified privilege defence for publication about society to non-members

Brady v Norman (No 2), [2010] EWHC 1215 (QB), 26/05/10

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:41:14 GMT

Approach to disapplication of limitation periods in defamation claims unaffected by Cain v Francis

HH Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Eastern Media Group & Singh, [2010] EWHC 1294 (QB), 17/05/10

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:39:49 GMT

Sikh doctrine libel claim stayed as non-justiciable

Hays Plc v Hartley [2010] EWHC 1068 (QB)

Thu, 20 May 2010 20:53:01 GMT

Libel claim against publicist struck out as abuse of process where settlement in related proceedings left nothing to be gained

Kaschke v Osler, [2010] EWHC 1075 (QB)

Thu, 20 May 2010 20:52:12 GMT

Libel claim struck out as abuse of process where damage likely to be minimal and no evidence of publication within limitation period

Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd (No 2), [2010] EWHC 924 (QB)

Thu, 20 May 2010 20:51:33 GMT

Summary judgment granted where defence of justification bound to succeed

Bridle & Anor v Williams & Anor, unreported, 17/03/2010

Thu, 06 May 2010 19:04:17 GMT

A slander claim in respect of alleged statements that the Claimant was “not a real professor” and not to believe a word he said was struck out as an abuse of process. It was accepted that the words were published on an occasion of qualified privilege and there was no evidence of malice fit to be left to a jury. The proceedings were an abuse of process as they had been issued for an improper collateral purpose (to provide a forum for the airing of a dispute over the risks of white asbestos), and further the claim was “not worth the candle”, given the limited publication, the poor prospects of success and the minimal vindication that might be achieved.

Kaschke v Gray & Hilton, [2010] EWHC 690 (QB)

Thu, 06 May 2010 19:03:16 GMT

The controller of a website on which allegedly defamatory words were posted was denied summary judgment on the basis that there was a realistic prospect that his defence under Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 might fail as it might be shown that his control of the website involved more than the mere storage of information.

British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350

Thu, 06 May 2010 18:38:30 GMT

An allegation that the British Chiropractic Association claimed that it could treat certain childhood disorders despite there being “not a jot of evidence”, and that despite being “the respectable face of the chiropractic profession”, “it happily promotes bogus treatments” was in context an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact and as such it was open to the Defendant to rely on the defence of fair comment (which was better termed “honest opinion”).

Frances Curran v. Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Limited [2010] CSOH 44

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:19:06 GMT

Procedure Roll:- In this action the pursuer, a member of the Scottish Socialist Party and a Member of the Scottish Parliament sought damages from the defenders, the publishers of the Daily Record and Sunday Mail newspapers, for defamation. On 7 August 2006 the defenders published a four page article based on an interview with Tommy Sheridan in which certain remarks were made about the pursuer. Here the defenders sought dismissal of the action on the basis that no relevant case of defamation was made out in the pursuer's pleadings and an esto position that, were the action to proceed to proof before answer, deletions would require to be made. It was submitted on behalf of the defenders that criticism by an MSP of another MSP did not amount to defamation because of the permitted latitude in criticising those who hold public office. Further, it was submitted that the comments made in the article were in any event protected by qualified privilege, the privilege being qualified to the extent that it may be rebutted by malice, however, the pursuer would require to aver malice and she has not done so. On behalf of the pursuer, counsel submitted that the case should be sent to proof before answer on the whole pleadings. Further, it was submitted that the tenor of the statements in the article were that the pursuer had been guilty of dishonest conduct with base motives, and thus went beyond fair criticism of a holder of a public office. In relation to the issue of qualified privilege it was conceded that a party is entitled to a fair retort to an accusation even where the retort involves an imputation against the party who first attacked him. It was further submitted, however, that the privilege does not extend to new and defamatory allegations made in the course of the retort. Here the court considered the question of whether the article complained of was defamatory and what the article would be understood to mean, in particular, the use of the word “scab”. The court also went on to consider the issue of qualified privilege and whether the article complained of was a reply by Mr Sheridan to an attack being made on him by others, including the pursuer.

Hughes v Risbridger & British Airways Plc (No 2) [2010] EWHC 491 (QB)

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:09:06 GMT

Allegation of theft against employer protected by privilege and not malicious; Data Protection Act claim fails as email not retained and not causative of pecuniary loss

Berezovsky v Russian State Television & Another (No 2) [2010] EWHC 476 (QB)

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:07:26 GMT

After a trial before Eady J sitting without a jury in respect of allegations that Boris Berezovsky, a Russian businessman granted political asylum in the UK, had murdered his friend Alexander Litvinenko in order to cover up the fraudulent nature of his asylum application and had made murderous threats towards another man, broadcast on Russian State Television and viewed by several thousand people in the UK, the Judge awarded Mr Berezovsky damages of £150,000 against the broadcaster and Vladimir Terluk, rejecting the latter’s defence that he was not the man identified in the programme as ‘Pyotr’ who had spoken the defamatory words. However, as joint tortfeasors the parties were only liable for the tort that both had committed, and Mr Terluk was not responsible for the allegations that Mr Berezovsky had either murdered Mr Litvinenko or made murderous threats towards another (himself). Had he done so, the damages awarded would have been higher.

Ali v Associated Newspapers [2010] EWHC 100 (QB)

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:29:30 GMT

Newspaper granted summary judgment where jury would be perverse not to interpret evidence as justifying defamatory meaning

North London Central Mosque Trust v Policy Exchange & MacEoin [2009] EWHC 3311 (QB) (26 November 2009)

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:26:26 GMT

Trustees of unincorporated charitable trust unable to bring defamation claim to protect trust’s reputation

Hughes v Risbridger & Anor [2009] EWHC 3244 (QB) (09 December 2009)

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:24:55 GMT

Malice plea not struck out where reasonable prospect of success and late amendment refused where vague

Williams v MGM Ltd [2009] EWHC 3150 (QB) (02 December 2009)

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:24:00 GMT

Convicted murderer’s libel claim struck out as abuse of process

Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2009] EWHC 2863 (QB) (12 November 2009)

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:36:53 GMT

Fair comment defence struck out where fact on which comment based not true

Lonzim Plc & Ors v Sprague [2009] EWHC 2838 (QB) (11 November 2009)

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:35:49 GMT

Claims for slander at AGM and for minimal website publication within the jurisdiction struck out as abuse of process

Winslet v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2009] EWHC 2735 (QB) (03 November 2009)

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:34:01 GMT

Claimant accepting unilateral offer of amends entitled to make unilateral statement in open court

Joseph & Ors v Spiller & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1075 (22 October 2009)

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:32:28 GMT

Fact not referred to in words complained of could not be used to support fair comment defence pursuant to s.6 of the Defamation Act 1952

Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2009] EWHC 2375 (QB) (16 October 2009)

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:31:03 GMT

A newspaper report of a police investigation into the conduct of the Claimant was the product of responsible journalism on a matter of public interest and so was protected by Reynolds privilege. However the failure of the Defendant to report the Claimant’s exoneration by the Independent Police Complaints Commission rendered the continuing publication of the original report irresponsible and so not the subject of the privilege.

Johnson v MGN Ltd [2009] EWHC 1481 (QB) (24 June 2009)

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:23:26 GMT

Words capable of bearing defamatory meaning: The defendant newspaper group’s applications for rulings that that the words complained of were not capable of bearing either of the defamatory meanings contended for were rejected. Jurors would not be perverse to draw the inferences contended for, and there might be a very small class of readers with the knowledge to draw the inference of breach of the league rules contended for by the Claimant.

SORGUC v. TURKEY - 17089/03 [2009] ECHR 979 (23 June 2009)

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:21:03 GMT

Liability for academic criticism of unnamed individual a violation of Article 10: The finding of a domestic court that an academic was liable for defaming an individual amounted to a violation of Article 10 when that individual had not been named and the implied criticism of him came in the context of an academic explaining his views on the appointment and promotion of academics at his university, as they had a sufficient basis in fact and concerned a matter of public interest.

Haji-Ioannou v Mark Dixon Regus Group Plc & Anor [2009] EWHC 178 (QB) (06 February 2009)

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:00:00 GMT

Claim for single publication to journalist not an abuse of process:
An application to strike out a claim for libel and/or slander in respect of a publication to one person as an abuse of process was dismissed, as that person was a journalist for a well-respected publication (the Financial Times) and it was intended that he would pass on the words, which were capable of amounting to an allegation of dishonesty, to a huge readership. The court could not conclude that there was no damage to the Claimant’s reputation or that any damages would be trivial.

Terence Partick Ewing v. Times Newspapers Limited [2009] CSOH 13

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:15:00 GMT

Caution:- On 11 December 2008 the court made an order requiring the pursuer to find caution for future expenses of £15,000. The pursuer applied for leave to reclaim that interlocutor in terms of Rule of Court 38.5. It was submitted by the pursuer that if he was granted leave he intended argue that the requirement that he find caution was disproportionate and in contravention of his Article 6 rights because it prevented access to the courts. Further, it was submitted that the defenders' application for an order for caution had been made prematurely given the early stage of the proceedings. It was submitted on behalf of the defenders that the application should be refused, the decision to make an order for caution being a matter for the discretion of the Lord Ordinary. Here the court provided written reasons, at the request of the pursuer, in determining the pursuer's motion.

Terence Patrick Ewing v. Times Newspapers Limited [2008] CSOH 169

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:48:00 GMT

Motion for Caution:- In this action the pursuer was a party litigant and the defenders were the publishers of inter alia "The Sunday Times". The pursuer sought damages, declarator and interdict by reason of wrongs that he averred he suffered by the publication on 11 February 2007of an article entitled "Heritage Fakers Hold Builders to Ransom". Here the defenders enrolled a motion for the pursuer to find caution in the sum of £50,000, or such other sum as might to the court seem appropriate in continuing the proceedings. On behalf of the defenders it was submitted that it was a matter for the discretion of the Lord Ordinary as to whether caution should be found as a condition precedent for allowing a party to continue with proceedings having regard to the whole circumstances of the case in particular:- (1) the pursuer's unreasonable behaviour; (2) the pursuer's financial position; and (3) the lack of merit in the pursuer's claim. It was submitted by the pursuer that to require him to find caution of £50,000 would effectively deprive him of his right of access to the court and breach his rights under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Here the court considered whether it would be in the interests of justice to make an order for caution for future expenses particularly in light of the pursuer's history of frivolous litigation.

Mardas v New York Times Company & Anor [2008] EWHC 3135 (QB) (17 December 2008)

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 GMT

The Claimant’s appeal against a Master’s order striking his claims out as abuses of process was allowed where there had been a “few dozen” hard copy and internet publications within the jurisdiction. That the allegations related to events that occurred decades ago was not a ground for striking the claims out, and it was irrelevant that the allegations had been published many times previously without complaint.

Tiscali UK Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc [2008] EWHC 3129 (QB) (16 December 2008)

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Letters not capable of bearing defamatory meaning; but may constitute causing loss by unlawful means.

The words in a letter sent by BT to Tiscali customers concerning a possible ‘plot’ to sell Tiscali’s broadband business were not capable of bearing any meaning of dishonesty or breach of duty by the company towards its customers, or any meaning defamatory of it; but the letters were arguably in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations, both of 2008. Accordingly the libel claim was struck out but a claim of causing loss by unlawful means permitted to continue.

Elton John v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2008] EWHC 3066 (QB) (12 December 2008)

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:00:00 GMT

In context, a spoof diary of the Claimant did not bear the serious defamatory meaning pleaded and that meaning was struck out. The ordinary reasonable reader would not read such an allegation into a parody piece in the context in which it was published.

Clarke (t/a Elumina Iberica UK) v Bain & Anor [2008] EWHC 2636 (QB) (19 November 2008)

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Aggravated damages plea relying on subsequent publications struck out on proportionality grounds: An aggravated damages plea that relied on a number of other publications said to also be libellous but not directly sued upon was struck out on case management grounds.

Craig Moore v. The Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Limited [2008] CSIH 50

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:46:00 GMT

Reclaiming Motion:- Here the pursuer and respondent sought damages from the defenders and reclaimers in respect of defamation of him by them alleged to have occurred in material published on 4 January 2005. Following a procedure roll debate, the Lord Ordinary made no order in hoc statu in the action. The defenders and reclaimers submitted that the Lord Ordinary had erred in refusing to dismiss the action, as they had sought. At the start of the hearing, it was indicated by counsel for the pursuer and respondent that the case had been settled. It was accepted that it was unfortunate that the court's time had been wasted by the late settlement. The court considered whether the court had the power to make an order such as that made in John Billig & Another v The Council of the Law Society of Scotland, [2007] CSIH 86, where, in response to the waste of the court's time occasioned by the late settlement of the action, the petitioners had been made liable to the Scottish Court Service for the daily court fees which would have been due had the reserved diet not been aborted.

Berezovsky v Russian Television & Radio Broadcasting Company & Anor [2008] EWHC 1918 (QB) (31 July 2008)

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:00:00 GMT

High Court declines to refuse jurisdiction: The High Court refused the Defendant’s application to decline jurisdiction on the basis that it could not have a fair trial as Russian law prevented it from identifying a witness when the evidence was that the witnesses’ identity was not so protected and in any event the significance of that was unclear as the Defendant had not identified the nature of its defence.

Tesco Stores Ltd v Guardian News & Media Ltd & Anor [2008] EWHC B14 (QB) (29 July 2008)

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Claimants must accept or reject an offers of amends within a reasonable time: A Claimant was not entitled to leave open the question of whether or not it was accepting or rejecting a Defendant’s offer of amends under s.2 of the Defamation Act 1996 and was ordered to accept or reject the offer within a reasonable time.

Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors [2008] EWHC 1797 (QB) (25 July 2008)

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Postings on internet bulletin boards may be treated as slanders: In continuing the stay of a large number of claims issued in respect of postings on internet bulletin boards, Eady J commented that such claims may fall to be treated as slanders rather than libels.

ALITHIA PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD - 17550/03 [2008] ECHR 420 (22 May 2008)

Thu, 22 May 2008 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 432 (30 April 2008)

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Gur v Avrupa Newspapers (CA) 30/04/08

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Seray-Wurie v The Charity Commission of England and Wales [2008] EWHC 870 (QB) (23 April 2008)

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Smith v ADVFN Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 518 (15 April 2008)

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Gentoo Group Ltd & Anor v Hanratty [2008] EWHC 627 (QB) (07 April 2008)

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Rath v Guardian News and Media Ltd & Anor [2008] EWHC 398 (QB) (05 March 2008)

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 GMT

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 Claimant had not complained could not be relied upon in mitigation of damage.

W v JH & A County Council QBD 5/3/08

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 GMT

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.

Freer v Zeb & Ors [2008] EWHC 212 (QB) (14 February 2008)

Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:00:00 GMT

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 claims that had been brought by the same claimant that were virtually identical.

Seaga v. Harper (Jamaica) [2008] UKPC 9 (30 January 2008)

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 GMT

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.

AppA UK Limited & Graham Hutchison v. The Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Limited [2007] CSOH 196

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:45:00 GMT

Expenses:- These two actions related to an issue of the Daily Record published on 29 November 2005 that carried articles relating to Mr. Hutchinson and AppA. The articles were critical of the methods by which they sold therapeutic beds to elderly customers. Here the pursuers lodged, in each action, a minute of abandonment. In each case the defenders lodged a motion for expenses and an additional fee. The motion stated inter alia:- "On behalf of the defenders, in respect of the pursuer's abandonment of the action, in respect of the contingency between the present action and the associated action at the instance of Graham Hutchison, and further in respect of the conduct of the pursuers and Mr Hutchison between the raising of the action and said abandonment, to find the pursuers jointly and severally liable with the said Graham Hutchison to the defenders in the expenses of the action on the basis of agent/client, client paying; which failing agent/client, third party paying; .." Here the court considered the pursuers' conduct of the litigations.

Ian Kennedy v. John Aldington and Others

Fri, 06 May 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Defamation/Forum Non Conveniens:

Westcrowns Contracting Services Limited v. Daylight Insulation Limited

Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Petition for Interdict/Defamation: