Defamation Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Sim v Stretch (1936)

A

Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society? per Lord Atkin

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

Yousopoff v MGM Pictures (1934)

A

Words which may make right-thinking members of society shun or avoid C without any moral discreditation on C’s part are sufficient

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

Tolley v Fry (1931)

A

Only a particular section of society will not suffice; advertisement defamatory to those who knew he was an amateur golfer; visual images are permanent
Statute says theatrical performances are permanent

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

Byrne v Dean (1937)

A

Criminals operating an illegal gambling machine where not held to be right thinking memebrs of society

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

Emerson v Grimsby Times (1928)

A

Draws a distinction between a joke and something which is truly defamatory

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

Myroft v Sleight

A

Hypocrite (trade union) is sufficient for a claim

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

Berkoff v Burchill (1996)

A

Able to make a claim as an actor whoh was described as ugly, Miller LJ dissent as ugly is not a set back

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

Charleston v News Group Newspapers (1995)

A

The whole article must be read to establish if it is a joke

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

Monson v Tussauds (1884)

A

A waxwork is capable of being defamatory; Lopez LJ considers that chalk board markings are libel

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

Lewis v Daily Telegraph (1963)

A

False innuendo; reading between the lines made suspect of fraud when really only being investigated

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

Defamation Act 2013 s1

A

Must cause serious harm or likely to cause serious harm

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

Cassidy

A

Does not matter if they do not know the statement is defamatory

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

Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers (1993)

A

Local government bodies cannot sue in defamation as would be contrary to the ECHR and stifle legitimate criticism

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

Goldsmith v Bhoyrul (1997)

A

Political parties cannot claim

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

EETPU v Times Newspapers Ltd (1980)

A

Trade unions cannot claim

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

Eastwood v Holmes (1858)

A

The words “all lawyers” not sufficient to broad

17
Q

Knupffer v London Express (1943)

A

No specific rule but generally must be published and refer to (i) a very small group or (iii) particularly points to the claimant

18
Q

Morgan v Odhams (1971)

A

No reasonable reader looking at the report in question would infer the allegations where true (kidnap)

19
Q

Multon v Jones (1910)

A

Barrister story; wasn’t aware claimant existed

20
Q

Newstead v London Express Newspaper (1940)

A

Two people living in the same place with the same name, damages reduced as claim was frivolous

21
Q

Thearer v Richardson (1962)

A

Opened letter to husband which was not marked as confidential, actionable claim as it was “reasonably to be anticipated”

22
Q

Huth v Huth (1914)

A

Not foreseeable a butler would read mail

23
Q

Slipper v BBC (1991)

A

Responsible for all foreseeable repetitions/wider sphere of publication

24
Q

Godrey v Demon (2001)

A

Internet statement is published when accessed

25
Q

Moore v Meager (1807)

A

Loss of hospitality is special damage

26
Q

Gray v Jones (1939)

A

Imputation of criminal conduct actionable per se

27
Q

Defamation Act 1952 s2

A

Imputation of unfitness is business actionable per se

28
Q

Defamation Act 2013 s2

A

Truth

29
Q

Edward v Bell (1824)

A

The defamatory sting

30
Q

Alexander v NE Railway Co (1865)

A

Only got length of the sentence incorrect so no claim

31
Q

Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers (2002)

A

Difference between conspiracy to commit match fixing and taking bribe; nominal damages

32
Q

Robson v News Group Newspapers (1996)

A

Unproven allegation of social security fraud not harmful when proven allegation of £4m mortgage fraud

33
Q

Khashoggi v IPC Magazines (1986)

A

Multiple proven sexual allegations with one unproven, application of Polly Peck form of justification

34
Q

Defamation Act 2013 s3

A

Fair comment, no public interest justification.
Must be a statement of opinion not fact (cannot be from a series of articles per Telnikoff)
Some indication of the basis of opinion (in order to encourage minimum standard of debate per Joseph v Spiller)
An honest person could have held the opinion based on fact (even if prejudiced, exaggerated etc per Turner v MGM)

35
Q

Adan v Ward (1917)

A

Anyone who has a interest and duty to share information (defence of qualified privilege)

36
Q

Watt v Longsdon (1930)

A

Duty to tell employer but not wife