Defamation Flashcards
Three key elements?
Statement inherently damaging in character;
Referred to C;
Caused C serious harm.
Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures?
If it brings hatred, ridicule, or contempt bc of moral discredit, or if it’d make C be shunned/avoided, even if no moral discredit.
Sim v Stretch?
If words would lower C in estimation of right-thinking members of society (i.e. hypothetical ordinary reasonable people).
Stocker v Stocker?
Context statement made in is central to perceived character -> lowers threshold.
Newstead v London Express?
D doesn’t need to intend to refer to C – sufficient if recipient would reasonably understand it to.
Damage presumed for what?
Irrefutably presumed for libel
Slander that accuses D of crime or questions their honesty/integrity in profession.
Sumption, Lachaux on s.1 of DA 13?
Raised threshold of serious harm.
Factual impact determines harm.
Factual impact determined by inherent probabilities of harm and C’s situation.
Privilege definition?
Defam statement made but D not liable for harm.
Nicholls, Reynolds v Times Newspapers on qual privilege?
Qual privilege arises when reciprocity of duty/interest between maker and recipient -> interest outweighs reputational protection.
How can qual privilege be lost?
Watt v Longsdon - if:
D went beyond limits of duty/interest; or
D acted with express malice.
Meaning of malice, Watt v Longsdon?
Malice = D made statement for some dominant improper motive.
C showing D didn’t believe words true, or was reckless as to truth = evidence D acted w/ dominant improper motive.
Horrocks v Lowe?
Even though statement proven false, D still could rely on qual priv defence -> info D published necessary to colleagues in council.
Key factor for decision = info published concerned w/ corruption in council (local authority, responsible for exercising public functions).
Defence of public interest established in which case?
Reynolds v Times Newspapers - but D had to show met standards of responsible journalism, assessed by reference to list of 10 factors.
Defence of public interest abolished where?
S. 4(6) of DA13 -> requirements now in s. 4(1) that D can prove statement on a matter of public interest and D reasonably believed publishing was in public interest.
UKSC in Serafin v Malkiewicz on s.4 interpretation?
Statement made about matter of public interest;
D believed publishing was in public interest; and
Belief had to be reasonable.
But not an absolute requirement.
