Defamation Flashcards
libel
permanent, actionable per se. Serious harm is likely or has been suffered
slander
Temporary, proof of special damage needed
defamation
publication of statement that tends to lower a person in the estimations of right thinking members of society
- causes of is likely to cause serious harm
- statement refers to C
- statement is published
when is proof of damage from defamation not required
imputation of criminal offence punishable by imprisonment
imputation of unfitness for office / business
what is serious harm for traders, companies and professional services
financial loss
is context taken into account in defamation
yes, read text and photos together
test to know if it refers to C - defamation
would a reasonable person believe it referred to c
can it refer to C if it refers to a group of people - defamation
only if it is a small enough group to refer to each member
who does it need to be published to in order for it to be defamation
a third party, not C or D’s spouse
can it be defamation if D didn’t intend for a third party to read it
yes if it was reasonably foreseeable
who cannot sue for defamation
local authorities, government, political parties
can MPs sue for defamation
yes
can companies sue for defamation
only if it caused or is likely to cause serious financial loss
defenses to defamation
truth, honest opinion, absolute privilege, qualified privilege, innocent dissemination, public interest, offer of amends
truth - defense to defamation
D can prove its true on balance of proabilities
only harmful portion of statement not every word
honest opinion -defense to defamation
genuinely and honestly held
objective test
absolute privilege - who has it?
defense to defamation
judges, parliament, some exec communications
qualified privilege - does it apply to the press?
defense to defamation
no
what is qualified privilege
when D is acting under a legal, moral or social obligation to communicate information to a person who had corresponding interest in receiving the info.
can qualified privilege be defeated
yes by malice - cannot rely on the defence if D had dominant and improper motive and lack of honest belief in the truth of the statement or recklessness regard for the truth
innocent dissemination - defense to defamation
not author, editor or publisher , only distributing or copying.
Took reasonable care
can websites rely on innocent dissemination defence
yes but not if they fail to address a complain as this would not be taking reasonable care
public interest defense to defamation
covers press
D must have reasonably believed publishing it was in the public interest
offer of amends - defense to defamation
when does it apply
unintentional defamation
D thought it was true or was referring to someone else but it was taken to mean C
