DEF Flashcards
How does the Defamation Act 2013 address the defense of “Truth” and what are its implications?
Truth (Section 2, Defamation Act 2013): “It is a defense to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.”
Key Case: Alexander v North Eastern Railway Co. (1865) - The defendant must show that the essence of the statement (the “sting”) is true, even if some details are inaccurate.
Significance:
Prioritizes factual accuracy.
Allows defendants to prove truth using any part of the statement that can substantiate the overall truth.
Protects freedom of expression by allowing truthful statements even if they are damaging.
Example: Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers (2002) - Allegations must be proven true to rely on this defense.
Quote: “The essence of the statement must be substantially true; minor inaccuracies do not defeat the defense”
What is the “Serious Harm” requirement under the Defamation Act 2013 and its impact on defamation claims?
Serious Harm (Section 1, Defamation Act 2013): A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.
Key Case: Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2018) - Claimants must prove serious harm with actual facts, not just potential harm.
Significance:
Raises the threshold for defamation claims.
Requires demonstrable evidence of harm, ensuring only serious cases proceed.
Balances protection of reputation with freedom of expression.
Application:
Real impact must be shown, not merely inferred.
Ensures trivial claims do not clog the courts.
Quote: “Serious harm must be evidenced, aligning with the Act’s aim to protect freedom of expression while addressing significant reputational damage”
What constitutes defamation in tort law?
Definition: A statement that injures a third party’s reputation. The statement must be published, false, and cause or be likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.
Key Elements:
Defamatory Statement: Lowers claimant’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people.
Identification: The statement must refer to the claimant.
Publication: The statement must be communicated to a third party.
Serious Harm: Introduced by the Defamation Act 2013, requiring proof of serious harm to reputation.
Case References:
Sim v Stretch (1936): Defined defamatory statements.
Byrne v Deane (1937): Emphasized lowering of reputation.
Monson v Tussauds Ltd (1894): Defamation can occur through various mediums.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2018): Clarified serious harm requirement.
What are the types of defamatory statements?
What are the types of defamatory statements?
A:
Libel: Written or otherwise permanent form.
Case Reference: Monson v Tussauds Ltd (1894) - Wax statue held to be libel.
Slander: Spoken or transient form.
Case Reference: Slander must generally prove special damage unless it imputes a crime, a contagious disease, professional incompetence, or unchastity.
What is the serious harm requirement in defamation claims?
Definition: A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.
Legal Reference: Section 1, Defamation Act 2013.
Key Case:
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2018): Claimants must prove serious harm with actual facts, not just potential harm.
Significance:
Raises the threshold for defamation claims.
Requires demonstrable evidence of harm, ensuring only serious cases proceed.
Balances protection of reputation with freedom of expression.
What are the main defenses to defamation?
Truth (Section 2, Defamation Act 2013):
Key Case: Alexander v North Eastern Railway Co. (1865) - The statement must be substantially true.
Honest Opinion (Section 3, Defamation Act 2013):
Requirements:
Statement of opinion.
Indicated the basis of the opinion.
An honest person could have held the opinion.
Key Case: Kemsley v Foot (1952) - Differentiating opinion from fact.
Publication on Matter of Public Interest (Section 4, Defamation Act 2013):
Requirements:
Statement on a matter of public interest.
Defendant reasonably believed it was in the public interest.
Key Case: Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd (2001) - Predecessor to the statutory defense.
Absolute Privilege: Complete immunity in certain contexts (e.g., parliamentary proceedings).
Key Case: Chatterton v Secretary of State for India (1895) - Absolute privilege in parliamentary debates.
Qualified Privilege: Protection in certain contexts if made without malice (e.g., reference checks).
Key Case: Adam v Ward (1917) - Qualified privilege in performance of a duty.
What are the key sections of the Defamation Act 2013?
Section 1: Serious Harm - A statement is not defamatory unless it has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.
Section 2: Truth - It is a defense to show that the statement is substantially true.
Section 3: Honest Opinion - Protects statements of opinion that indicate the basis of the opinion and could be held by an honest person.
Section 4: Publication on Matter of Public Interest - Protects statements on matters of public interest if the defendant reasonably believed publication was in the public interest.
Section 5: Operators of Websites - Provides a defense for website operators if they did not post the statement themselves.
Section 6: Peer-reviewed Statements in Scientific or Academic Journals - Provides a defense for statements in peer-reviewed academic journals.
Section 8: Single Publication Rule - Limits defamation claims to one year from the first publication, preventing repeated claims for the same statement.
What are the key case summaries for defamation law?
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2018):
Facts: Articles published alleging the claimant was abusive and manipulative.
Held: Serious harm requirement under Section 1, Defamation Act 2013, was satisfied.
Significance: Clarified the need for actual evidence of serious harm.
Monson v Tussauds Ltd (1894):
Facts: A wax figure of the claimant placed in the “Chamber of Horrors.”
Held: The figure constituted libel, as it implied the claimant was a criminal.
Significance: Established that libel can occur through various mediums, including visual representations.
Alexander v North Eastern Railway Co. (1865):
Facts: The company published a false report about the claimant’s conviction.
Held: The defense of truth requires proving the substantial truth of the statement.
Significance: Highlighted the necessity of proving the truth of defamatory statements.
What constitutes identification in defamation claims?
Requirement: The defamatory statement must refer to the claimant.
Key Points:
Claimant must be identifiable by the statement, either explicitly or implicitly.
A reasonable person must understand the statement as referring to the claimant.
Case References:
Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd (1971): Implied identification is sufficient if the statement would lead others to identify the claimant.
Newstead v London Express Newspapers Ltd (1940): Even if a statement does not name the claimant, if it can reasonably be understood to refer to them, it can be defamatory.
Hulton & Co v Jones (1910): Intent to defame is irrelevant if a reasonable person would understand the statement to refer to the claimant.
What does publication mean in the context of defamation?
Definition: The defamatory statement must be communicated to a third party.
Key Points:
It is not sufficient for the statement to be made only to the claimant.
Communication can be through various mediums, including print, online, or spoken.
Case References:
Huth v Huth (1915): Opening a letter by an unauthorized person can constitute publication.
Theaker v Richardson (1962): Accidental publication through foreseeable means (e.g., opened by spouse).
Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts: Defines publication broadly to include any third-party recipient.
What are the differences between libel and slander in defamation law?
Libel:
Written or otherwise permanent form.
Actionable per se (without proof of damage).
Case Reference: Monson v Tussauds Ltd (1894) - Wax figure held to be libel.
Slander:
Spoken or transient form.
Requires proof of special damage unless it imputes a crime, a contagious disease, professional incompetence, or unchastity.
Case Reference: McManus v Beckham (2002) - Slander can include statements that affect professional reputation.
What are the types of privilege defenses in defamation law?
Absolute Privilege:
Complete immunity in certain contexts, regardless of malice.
Examples include parliamentary proceedings, judicial proceedings, and communications between spouses.
Case Reference: Chatterton v Secretary of State for India (1895) - Absolute privilege in parliamentary debates.
Qualified Privilege:
Protection for statements made in certain contexts if made without malice.
Examples include reference checks, reporting of public meetings, and certain journalistic reporting.
Case Reference: Adam v Ward (1917) - Qualified privilege in performance of a duty.
What is the defense of innocent dissemination in defamation law?
Definition: Protects distributors of defamatory material who are not the authors or publishers and had no knowledge of the defamatory content.
Requirements:
The defendant must not have known that the material was defamatory.
The defendant must not have been negligent in failing to discover the defamatory content.
Case Reference:
Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library Ltd (1900): Established the principles of the innocent dissemination defense.
What is the structure for answering a problem question on defamation?
Identify the Defamatory Statement
Determine if the statement is capable of being defamatory.
Case References: Sim v Stretch (1936), Byrne v Deane (1937).
2. Identify the Claimant
Ensure the statement refers to the claimant.
Case Reference: Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd (1971).
3. Establish Publication
Confirm the statement was published to a third party.
Case Reference: Huth v Huth (1915).
4. Prove Serious Harm
Prove that the statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.
Case Reference: Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2018).
5. Consider Defenses
Truth: Prove the statement is substantially true.
Case Reference: Alexander v North Eastern Railway Co. (1865).
Honest Opinion: Show the statement was an honest opinion.
Case Reference: Kemsley v Foot (1952).
Public Interest: Prove the statement was on a matter of public interest.
Case Reference: Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd (2001).
Privilege: Determine if the statement is protected by absolute or qualified privilege.
Case References: Chatterton v Secretary of State for India (1895), Adam v Ward (1917).
Innocent Dissemination: Establish that the defendant is a distributor without knowledge of the defamatory content.
Case Reference: Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library Ltd (1900).
6. Conclude with Likely Outcomes
Summarize the likelihood of the claim succeeding based on the analysis.
Suggest appropriate remedies (damages, injunctions).
What are the facts and significance of Sim v Stretch (1936)?
Facts: The defendant sent a telegram to the claimant’s former housemaid stating, “Please send back the money you borrowed.”
Held: The statement was not defamatory. The House of Lords held that the words were not likely to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
Significance: Established the test for a defamatory statement: “Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?”
