Defamation Flashcards
Sim v Stretch (1936)
Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society? per Lord Atkin
Yousopoff v MGM Pictures (1934)
Words which may make right-thinking members of society shun or avoid C without any moral discreditation on C’s part are sufficient
Tolley v Fry (1931)
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
Byrne v Dean (1937)
Criminals operating an illegal gambling machine where not held to be right thinking memebrs of society
Emerson v Grimsby Times (1928)
Draws a distinction between a joke and something which is truly defamatory
Myroft v Sleight
Hypocrite (trade union) is sufficient for a claim
Berkoff v Burchill (1996)
Able to make a claim as an actor whoh was described as ugly, Miller LJ dissent as ugly is not a set back
Charleston v News Group Newspapers (1995)
The whole article must be read to establish if it is a joke
Monson v Tussauds (1884)
A waxwork is capable of being defamatory; Lopez LJ considers that chalk board markings are libel
Lewis v Daily Telegraph (1963)
False innuendo; reading between the lines made suspect of fraud when really only being investigated
Defamation Act 2013 s1
Must cause serious harm or likely to cause serious harm
Cassidy
Does not matter if they do not know the statement is defamatory
Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers (1993)
Local government bodies cannot sue in defamation as would be contrary to the ECHR and stifle legitimate criticism
Goldsmith v Bhoyrul (1997)
Political parties cannot claim
EETPU v Times Newspapers Ltd (1980)
Trade unions cannot claim
Eastwood v Holmes (1858)
The words “all lawyers” not sufficient to broad
Knupffer v London Express (1943)
No specific rule but generally must be published and refer to (i) a very small group or (iii) particularly points to the claimant
Morgan v Odhams (1971)
No reasonable reader looking at the report in question would infer the allegations where true (kidnap)
Multon v Jones (1910)
Barrister story; wasn’t aware claimant existed
Newstead v London Express Newspaper (1940)
Two people living in the same place with the same name, damages reduced as claim was frivolous
Thearer v Richardson (1962)
Opened letter to husband which was not marked as confidential, actionable claim as it was “reasonably to be anticipated”
Huth v Huth (1914)
Not foreseeable a butler would read mail
Slipper v BBC (1991)
Responsible for all foreseeable repetitions/wider sphere of publication
Godrey v Demon (2001)
Internet statement is published when accessed
Moore v Meager (1807)
Loss of hospitality is special damage
Gray v Jones (1939)
Imputation of criminal conduct actionable per se
Defamation Act 1952 s2
Imputation of unfitness is business actionable per se
Defamation Act 2013 s2
Truth
Edward v Bell (1824)
The defamatory sting
Alexander v NE Railway Co (1865)
Only got length of the sentence incorrect so no claim
Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers (2002)
Difference between conspiracy to commit match fixing and taking bribe; nominal damages
Robson v News Group Newspapers (1996)
Unproven allegation of social security fraud not harmful when proven allegation of £4m mortgage fraud
Khashoggi v IPC Magazines (1986)
Multiple proven sexual allegations with one unproven, application of Polly Peck form of justification
Defamation Act 2013 s3
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)
Adan v Ward (1917)
Anyone who has a interest and duty to share information (defence of qualified privilege)
Watt v Longsdon (1930)
Duty to tell employer but not wife
