Cases - Defamation Flashcards
Standing to sue - companies
South Hetton Coal Company v North Eastern News Association Ltd - -Companies can bring a defamation claim if it reflects on their management of trade or business
Standing to sue - PA and PP
Derbyshire v Times Newspapers
Statement is defamatory
Berkoff v Burchill - statement must cause more than upset or anger
Ugly is subjective
Context may be considered - ugly in the theatre industry (this didn’t work in this context)
Statement is defamatory - words are given ordinary meaning
Lewis v Daily Telegraph
Statement is defamatory - right thinking members of society
Slim v Stretch
Clarified in Lewis v Daily Telegraph - a reasonable person
Statement is defamatory -article must be read as a whole
Charleston v News Group Newspapers
Statement is defamatory - false innuendo
Lewis v Daily Telegraph
Statement is defamatory - true innuendo
Cassidy v Daily Mirror Telegraph
Statement is defamatory - test for innuendo (no case)
Objective test: what would right-thinking people knowing the additional information make of the statement?
Statement referred to C - D need not intend
Hulton v Jones
Statement referred to C - mistake
Newstead v London Express
Statement referred to C - test for this (and case)
- Objective test – would a reasonable person understand the statement is referring to C? (Morgan v Oldhams Press Ltd)
- not applied if C is names
Statement referred to C - phots don’t ‘refer to C’
O’Shea v MGN - distinguished from Hulton because it would place an impossible burden on publishers
Statement referred to C - wont refer to C unless the group is small enough
Knuppfer v London Express Newspapers
Statement has been published - websites
Johnson v Steele
Statement has been published - tweets
Monroe v Hopkins
Statement has been published - Blogs
Cruddas v Adams
Statement has been published - test + case
Theaker v Richardson - published if it is reasonably foreseeable someone else would see/hear the defamatory statement
Statement has been published - internet service provider can become a publisher
Godfrey v Demon Internet Service
Tamiz v Google
Defence - Truth - sting of libel
Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd
Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd - actually fixing matches was the sting of the libel
Defence - Honest Opinion - facts
Joseph v Philips - facts the opinion is based on must be proven generally or specifically
Defence - Honest Opinion - honest person
Tse Wei Chun v Cheng sets out the test: if the comment was one which could have been made by an honest person, however prejudiced, exaggerated or obstinate his views’
Defence - qualified privilege - test
1) D had a duty to tell C
2) C has an interest
3) This was not done in malice
4) D must have honestly believed info
Defence - qualified privilege - case exemplifying test
Watt v Longsdon
Defence - qualified privilege - malice + case
intention to damage C’s reputation, if D does not believe the statement is true or does not care if it is true or not. (Clarke v Molyneux)
Defence - qualified privilege - honest belief
Harrocks v Lowe
Defence - qualified privilege - classic example
Job references
Defence - public interest (case + reasoning)
Economou v de Freitas: The issue was whether D reasonably believed the publication was in the public interest (it had already satisfied the first part of the test). It was held he did reasonably believe it was in the public’s interest to know. These are some of the factors determining this:
Unique position – it was his daughter, he had witnessed some events first hand thus meaning the info was reliable
He was challenging the CPS, he was targeting them not C, he deliberately avoided labelling C
It was reasonable to expect the media reporting the story to carry out further investigations
The tone written was reasonable and responsible
