Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Tort Law > Defamation > Flashcards

Defamation Flashcards

1
Q

Prerequisites

A
  • Identifying Libel or Slander
  • Is the matter justiciable
  • Is the ‘serious harm’ threshold met
  • Does C have capacity to sue?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Elements

A
  • D made a defamatory imputation
  • The defamatory imputation identified C
  • The defamatory imputation was published
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Manson v Tussauds test
(which paragraph)

A

The (CASE) test categorises libel as permanent and slander as transient
(Prerequisite 1 - Libel or Slander)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Youssoupoff v MGM
(Which paragraph)

A

(CASE) case defines libel as addressed to the eye and slander as addressed to the ear.
(Prerequisite 1 - Libel or Slander)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Maharaja v Eastern Media Group Ltd.
(Which paragraph)

A

Courts will not rule on claims regarding religious matters or doctrine as found in (CASE)
(Prerequisite 2 - Justiciable)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

s.1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013
(Which paragraph)

A

(STATUTE) requires the claimant to prove that the defamatory statement has caused, or is likely to cause, ‘serious harm’ to their reputation.
(Prerequisite 3 - Serious Harm)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

s.1(2) Defamation Act
(Which paragraph)

A

If the claimant is a company, (STATUTE) requires financial loss to be proven in order to meet the serious harm threshold.
(Prerequisite 3 - Serious Harm)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd
(Which paragraph)

A

(CASE) concluded that the harm must be evidenced by the actual impact on the claimant’s reputation instead of being merely inferred from the content of the statement.
(Prerequisite 3 - Serious Harm)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Blake v Fox
(Which paragraph)

A

As per (CASE), the facts must be analysed to determine whether the serious harm threshold is met
(Perquisite 3 - Serious Harm)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

EETPU v Times Newspaper
(Which paragraph)

A

Unincorporated Associations do not possess a legal personality and thus do not have the capacity to sue as per (CASE).
(Prerequisite 4 - Capacity to Sue)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

McLaughlin v Lambeth Borough Council
(Which paragraph)

A

Local and governmental authorities do not possess the capacity to sue as per (CASE).
(Prerequisite 4 - Capacity to Sue)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Sim v Stretch
(Which paragraph)

A

(CASE) holds that the statement must have a tendency to lower the claimant’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
(Element 1 - Defamatory Imputation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Bestobell Paints v Bigg
(Which paragraph)

A

(CASE) holds that false innuendos can still be considered defamatory.
(Element 1 - Defamatory Imputation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Cassidy v Daily Mirror
(Which paragraph)

A

(CASE) found that true legal innuendos can also be considered defamatory.
(Element 1 - Defamatory Imputation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Berkoff v Burchill
(Which paragraph)

A

Statements which expose the claimant to hatred are considered defamatory under (CASE).
(Element 1 - Defamatory Imputation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Youssoupoff v MGM
(Which paragraph) 2

A

(CASE) held that statements which cause the claimant to be shunned are also defamatory in nature.
(Element 1 - Defamatory Imputation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Baturina v Times Newspaper
(Which paragraph)

A

Under (CASE), facts given in the statement which could lead a reasonable reader to identify the claimant are treated as if the claimant was identified
(Element 2 - Imputation Identified C)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Hayward v Thompson
(Which paragraph)

A

(CASE) held that this element is satisfied even if the claimant’s identity can be derived from previous publications.
(Element 2 - Imputation Identified C)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

E Hulton & Co v Jones
(Which paragraph)

A

Fictional characters which clearly resemble living persons also satisfy this element as was found in (CASE).
(Element 2 - Imputation Identified C)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Newstead v London Express Newspaper.
(Which paragraph)

A

Large groups do not satisfy this element as they are too large to identify and ascertain, however, smaller groups do as per (CASE).
(Element 2 - Imputation Identified C)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Definition of ‘Publication’

A

Publication is defined as communication with at least one third party.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Bezant v Rausing
(Which paragraph)

A

In order to sue the defendant, the publication must be a natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s actions as found in (CASE).
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Bunt v Tilley
(Which paragraph)

A

An intention to publish is not required, a degree of awareness and/or editorial responsibilities under negligence are sufficient as per (CASE).
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Passive Role

A

However, passive roles which did not play a direct role in publication are not valid.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Byrne v Dean
(Which paragraph)

A

(CASE) held that if the defendant had the power to remove the publication from online but failed to do so, then the defendant had consented to the publication and was thus liable.
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

26
Q

Lord Devlin in Lewis v Daily Telegraph
(Which paragraph)

A

(CASE) stated that repeating a defamatory publication is as if the defendant made the publication themselves.
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

27
Q

s.8 of the Defamation Act 2013
(Which paragraph)

A

(STATUTE) states that defamation is measured from the date of the original publication, including re-publication unless there has been a material change.
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

28
Q

s.4(A) of the Limitation Act 1980.
(Which paragraph)

A

Limitation period for a cause of action for defamation is twelve months as per (STATUTE).
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

29
Q

Limitation for online defamation

A

Defamation for online publications measured from when publication was made accessible and downloadable.

30
Q

Tamiz v Google
(Which paragraph)

A

(CASE) held that an online provider failing to remove an online publication despite being made aware of it is still liable.
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

31
Q
  • Identifying Libel or Slander
  • Is the matter justiciable
  • Is the ‘serious harm’ threshold met
  • Does C have capacity to sue?
A

Prerequisites

32
Q
  • D made a defamatory imputation
  • The defamatory imputation identified C
  • The defamatory imputation was published
33
Q

The (CASE) test categorises libel as permanent and slander as transient
(Prerequisite 1 - Libel or Slander)

A

Manson v Tussauds test
(which paragraph)

34
Q

(CASE) case defines libel as addressed to the eye and slander as addressed to the ear.
(Prerequisite 1 - Libel or Slander)

A

Youssoupoff v MGM
(Which paragraph)

35
Q

Courts will not rule on claims regarding religious matters or doctrine as found in (CASE)
(Prerequisite 2 - Justiciable)

A

Maharaja v Eastern Media Group Ltd.
(Which paragraph)

36
Q

(STATUTE) requires the claimant to prove that the defamatory statement has caused, or is likely to cause, ‘serious harm’ to their reputation.
(Prerequisite 3 - Serious Harm)

A

s.1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013
(Which paragraph)

37
Q

If the claimant is a company, (STATUTE) requires financial loss to be proven in order to meet the serious harm threshold.
(Prerequisite 3 - Serious Harm)

A

s.1(2) Defamation Act
(Which paragraph)

38
Q

(CASE) concluded that the harm must be evidenced by the actual impact on the claimant’s reputation instead of being merely inferred from the content of the statement.
(Prerequisite 3 - Serious Harm)

A

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd
(Which paragraph)

39
Q

As per (CASE), the facts must be analysed to determine whether the serious harm threshold is met
(Perquisite 3 - Serious Harm)

A

Blake v Fox
(Which paragraph)

40
Q

Unincorporated Associations do not possess a legal personality and thus do not have the capacity to sue as per (CASE).
(Prerequisite 4 - Capacity to Sue)

A

EETPU v Times Newspaper
(Which paragraph)

41
Q

Local and governmental authorities do not possess the capacity to sue as per (CASE).
(Prerequisite 4 - Capacity to Sue)

A

McLaughlin v Lambeth Borough Council
(Which paragraph)

42
Q

(CASE) holds that the statement must have a tendency to lower the claimant’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
(Element 1 - Defamatory Imputation)

A

Sim v Stretch
(Which paragraph)

43
Q

(CASE) holds that false innuendos can still be considered defamatory.
(Element 1 - Defamatory Imputation)

A

Bestobell Paints v Bigg
(Which paragraph)

44
Q

(CASE) found that true legal innuendos can also be considered defamatory.
(Element 1 - Defamatory Imputation)

A

Cassidy v Daily Mirror
(Which paragraph)

45
Q

Statements which expose the claimant to hatred are considered defamatory under (CASE).
(Element 1 - Defamatory Imputation)

A

Berkoff v Burchill
(Which paragraph)

46
Q

(CASE) held that statements which cause the claimant to be shunned are also defamatory in nature.
(Element 1 - Defamatory Imputation)

A

Youssoupoff v MGM
(Which paragraph) 2

47
Q

Under (CASE), facts given in the statement which could lead a reasonable reader to identify the claimant are treated as if the claimant was identified
(Element 2 - Imputation Identified C)

A

Baturina v Times Newspaper
(Which paragraph)

48
Q

(CASE) held that this element is satisfied even if the claimant’s identity can be derived from previous publications.
(Element 2 - Imputation Identified C)

A

Hayward v Thompson
(Which paragraph)

49
Q

Fictional characters which clearly resemble living persons also satisfy this element as was found in (CASE).
(Element 2 - Imputation Identified C)

A

E Hulton & Co v Jones
(Which paragraph)

50
Q

Large groups do not satisfy this element as they are too large to identify and ascertain, however, smaller groups do as per (CASE).
(Element 2 - Imputation Identified C)

A

Newstead v London Express Newspaper.
(Which paragraph)

51
Q

Publication is defined as communication with at least one third party.

A

Definition of ‘Publication’

52
Q

In order to sue the defendant, the publication must be a natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s actions as found in (CASE).
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

A

Bezant v Rausing
(Which paragraph)

53
Q

An intention to publish is not required, a degree of awareness and/or editorial responsibilities under negligence are sufficient as per (CASE).
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

A

Bunt v Tilley
(Which paragraph)

54
Q

However, passive roles which did not play a direct role in publication are not valid.

A

Passive Role

55
Q

(CASE) held that if the defendant had the power to remove the publication from online but failed to do so, then the defendant had consented to the publication and was thus liable.
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

A

Byrne v Dean
(Which paragraph)

56
Q

(CASE) stated that repeating a defamatory publication is as if the defendant made the publication themselves.
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

A

Lord Devlin in Lewis v Daily Telegraph
(Which paragraph)

57
Q

(STATUTE) states that defamation is measured from the date of the original publication, including re-publication unless there has been a material change.
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

A

s.8 of the Defamation Act 2013
(Which paragraph)

58
Q

Limitation period for a cause of action for defamation is twelve months as per (STATUTE).
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

A

s.4(A) of the Limitation Act 1980.
(Which paragraph)

59
Q

Defamation for online publications measured from when publication was made accessible and downloadable.

A

Limitation for online defamation

60
Q

(CASE) held that an online provider failing to remove an online publication despite being made aware of it is still liable.
(Element 3 - Imputation was published)

A

Tamiz v Google
(Which paragraph)

Tort Law (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions