Defamation Flashcards
Monson v Tussauds
Libel - waxwork
Reynolds v Times Newspapers
Shows the difficult balance between freedom of expression and right to privacy
Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures
Libel - defamatory statement in a film is libel
Defamation Act 1952,
Broadcasting Act 190
s16 -
s166 -
Defamatory statement in a broadcast to the public via radio or TV is libel
Theatres Act 1968
s4 - defamatory statement in a public performance of a play is generally libel
Webb v Beavan
Bloodworth v Gray
Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Pictures
Jones v Jones
CL exceptions to slander having to have had special/actual damage
- Criminal offence punishable by imprisonment
- Disease which is contagious - no longer exception s14 DA 2013
- unchastity of women - REPEALED
- Disparaging people in trade, office, etc.
Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers
Local authorities cannot sue for defamation as this would have an inhibiting effect on the freedom of expression
Goldsmith v Bhoyrul
Political parties cannot sue either but individuals may bring actions per Lord Keith
Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication & Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers
Trade unions cannot sue and cf s10 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act
Sim v Stretch
Youssoupoff
Generally words are defamatory when they would tend to lower the C’s reputation in the estimation of ‘right-thinking’ members of society (Sim) or would tend to cause him to be shunned (Youssoupoff) – OBJECTIVE TEST
Hartt v Newspaper Publishing
The ‘right thinking’ person is not unduly suspicious but can read between the lines - not avid for scandal
Sim v Stretch
Youssoupoff (Interpretation of words)
Usually words are given their natural and ordinary meaning but sometimes this isn’t appropriate cf Y
Berkoff v Burchill
A statement which exposes ridicule or contempt but does not allege misconduct e.g. calling someone ‘hideously ugly’ was said to be capable of being defamatory
Charleston v Newsgroup Newspapers
The statement/photo/etc must be taken in the WHOLE context therefore a libellous image/statement can be balanced and rendered non-defamatory by a caption explaining or a generally balanced article
Morgan v Oldham Press
The statement, etc. must refer to the C but not necessarily expressly, if the ordinary sensible person would believe it to be C then it is still defamatory
Hulton v Jones
A work of fiction which refers to C, even under a different name, will be defamatory even if D did not know that he existed
Newstead v London Express Newspapers
Even if an article is truthfully made about one person but it could also be read as another person then this will be defamatory - ‘unintentional defamation’ s4 1952
Kuppfer v Express London Newspapers
Generally a defamatory statement against a class is not actionable
Aspro Travel v Owners Abroad
Depending on the size/extravagance of the claim may be actionable against a class
Huth v Huth
The defamatory statement must have been published to a third party, here there was an unsealed letter sent, which was opened by a butler, this was not published, it was not the butler’s business to read the letter
Wennhak v Morgan
Making a statement to one’s own spouse is not published
Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library
The Ds would normally have had the defence of “innocent publication” but here they had overlooked a circular requesting the book be withdrawn and had no method for checking books - Romer LJ states they must be innocent, had no reason to be aware of libel and no negligence
Tolley v JS Fry & Sons
Innuendo - where the natural or ordinary meaning of the words are not in themselves defamatory but confined with extrinsic facts they are
Cookson v Harewood
If the C consented either expressly or impliedly to the publication of the material then this will be a defence
Alexander v North Eastern Railway
Justification - the D need only prove the truth of the ‘sting’ of the charge
Wakley v Cooke and Healy
What is the ‘substance’ of the truth will depend on the context
London Artists v Littler
Fair comment - defence to protect honest expressions of opinion which are not malicious, L Denning gave a wide interpretation – NB this is ONLY for opinion, not assertions of verifiable fact, that is for justification
Spiller v Joseph
Elucidated that it was not necessary (as L Nicholls had held) that the specific factual basis of the alleged defamatory comment need be shown for the defence of fair comment, merely in general
Kelmsley v Foot
The opinion for which the defence is for must be based on true facts - must be clear what the factual basis is and that the comment is indeed an opinion and not a elaboration of fact
Telnikoff v Matusevitah
The court must confine itself to the subject matter of the publication in order to ascertain whether there was factual basis – the opinion must be honestly held even if it was not reasonable to hold such an opinion
Thomas v Bradbury
If a fair comment can be proved to be malicious then the defence will be barred
Daniels v Griffiths
Absolute privilege will be a defence even if malicious in the case of court proceedings, parliamentary proceedings, communications between officers of the state, e.g. – NB the courts have been reluctant to extend absolute privilege to quasi- proceedings
Horrocks v Lowe
Qualified privilege - must not be malicious but must be an honest belief (even if irrational) - in the pursuance of a social, moral or legal duty and the person to whom the statement is made has an interest in receiving that information – NB ‘political information’ was not extended in Reynolds
Reynolds v Times Newspapers
Jameel v Wall Street Journal
Flood v Times Newspapers
Despite declining to extend QP to general ‘political information’ in J the HL stated that the ‘public interest’ element should not be applied too cautiously – journalists are under a professional duty to report but they must conduct ‘responsible journalism’ cf. Flood
McKennitt v Ash
NB where there is a pre-existing obligation of confidence (i.e. a former friend who publishes private info) then there will be great weight given to this in upholding the D’s right to privacy
