Cases - Defamation

Question 1

Standing to sue - companies

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Standing to sue - PA and PP

Answer 2

Derbyshire v Times Newspapers

Question 3

Statement is defamatory

Answer 3

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)

Question 4

Statement is defamatory - words are given ordinary meaning

Answer 4

Lewis v Daily Telegraph

Question 5

Statement is defamatory - right thinking members of society

Answer 5

Slim v Stretch

Clarified in Lewis v Daily Telegraph - a reasonable person

Question 6

Statement is defamatory -article must be read as a whole

Answer 6

Charleston v News Group Newspapers

Question 7

Statement is defamatory - false innuendo

Answer 7

Lewis v Daily Telegraph

Question 8

Statement is defamatory - true innuendo

Answer 8

Cassidy v Daily Mirror Telegraph

Question 9

Statement is defamatory - test for innuendo (no case)

Answer 9

Objective test: what would right-thinking people knowing the additional information make of the statement?

Question 10

Statement referred to C - D need not intend

Answer 10

Hulton v Jones

Question 11

Statement referred to C - mistake

Answer 11

Newstead v London Express

Question 12

Statement referred to C - test for this (and case)

Answer 12

• Objective test – would a reasonable person understand the statement is referring to C? (Morgan v Oldhams Press Ltd)
• not applied if C is names

Question 13

Statement referred to C - phots don’t ‘refer to C’

Answer 13

O’Shea v MGN - distinguished from Hulton because it would place an impossible burden on publishers

Question 14

Statement referred to C - wont refer to C unless the group is small enough

Answer 14

Knuppfer v London Express Newspapers

Question 15

Statement has been published - websites

Answer 15

Johnson v Steele

Question 16

Statement has been published - tweets

Answer 16

Monroe v Hopkins

Question 17

Statement has been published - Blogs

Answer 17

Cruddas v Adams

Question 18

Statement has been published - test + case

Answer 18

Theaker v Richardson - published if it is reasonably foreseeable someone else would see/hear the defamatory statement

Question 19

Statement has been published - internet service provider can become a publisher

Answer 19

Godfrey v Demon Internet Service

Tamiz v Google

Question 20

Defence - Truth - sting of libel

Answer 20

Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd - actually fixing matches was the sting of the libel

Question 21

Defence - Honest Opinion - facts

Answer 21

Joseph v Philips - facts the opinion is based on must be proven generally or specifically

Question 22

Defence - Honest Opinion - honest person

Answer 22

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’

Question 23

Defence - qualified privilege - test

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Defence - qualified privilege - case exemplifying test

Answer 24

Watt v Longsdon

Question 25

Defence - qualified privilege - malice + case

Answer 25

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)

Question 26

Defence - qualified privilege - honest belief

Answer 26

Harrocks v Lowe

Question 27

Defence - qualified privilege - classic example

Answer 27

Job references

Question 28

Defence - public interest (case + reasoning)

Answer 28

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