Defamation

Question 1

S6(2)

Answer 1

publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person

Question 2

McMahon & Binchy

Answer 2

any method by which meaning can be communicated is sufficient

Question 3

Monson v Tussauds

Answer 3

waxwork model of P was found to be communication

Question 4

S6(4)

Answer 4

no publication if published to the person concerned, not intentionally published or not reasonably foreseeable it would be published to another

Question 5

Berry v Irish Times

Answer 5

IT produced a photo of man with an alleged defamatory statement of P, production of the photo was a publication of a DS notwithstanding they did not make the statement, original publisher of DS will be liable for repetition if it can be shown the repetition was a foreseeable consequence

Question 6

Paul v Holt

Answer 6

D sent letter to P addressed to Mr Paul, he was aware that 2 Mr Paul’s lived at the address, D liable for accidental publication as he should have been aware of the potential for another to read the letter - would appear that where a person acts recklessly or negligently they will be responsible for accidental publciation

Question 7

S11 multiple publications

Answer 7

person can only bring one cause of action in respect of multiple publications, court can grant leave to do more if the justice of the case requires

Question 8

Kennedy & Murphy

Answer 8

the internet enables greater immediacy of expressive action which is both beneficial but also dangerous

Question 9

Arlene Foster v Christian Jessen

Answer 9

D tweeted unfounded claim that DUP leader had been having an extra-marital affair on 23.12.2019, post remained online until D deleted it on 7.1.2020, Belfast HC said it was an “outrageous libel” which was “grossly defamatory”

Question 10

E-Commerce Directive 2000

Answer 10

ISPs have a defence where they do not have actual knowledge of the unlawful activity or if once they obtain knowledge, act expeditiously to remove the info

Question 11

Mulvaney v Betfair

Answer 11

2000 Directive successfully plead, if ISP is to avoid liability it must play only a ‘passive’ role in hosting the material

Question 12

Tamiz v Google

Answer 12

D provided a service which allowed internet users to display ads on their blog, one blog contained DS about P, P contacted D to remove, not done for 4-5 weeks, court held ISP is not a publisher when playing passive role but once it has notice and does not take it down, it may be seen as having made itself responsible for the continued presence of the material and therefore is a publisher