Defamation

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: