Defamation

Question 1

Broom v Ritchie & Co

Answer 1

You cannot defame the dead

Question 2

Derbyshire v Times Newspaper

Answer 2

Public authorities cannot sue in defamation

Question 3

Cooke v MGN

Answer 3

Report on landlords extorting £, referred to C (housing association). 1st case on meaning of serious harm s1 Defamation Act 1012 (threshold not met)
→ Association ≠ defamation + Paper had apologised

Question 4

Sim v Strech

Answer 4

Defamatory test: Lord Atkin: would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?

Question 5

Gillick v BBC

Answer 5

Can read btw the lines; the words were capable of bearing the Claimant’s meaning and that meaning was defamatory of her→ Readers capable of understanding allusive remark

Question 6

Byrne v Dean

Answer 6

Reporting illegal acts ≠ defamatory to right-thinking members

Question 7

Innuendos

Answer 7

Allusive or oblique remark or hint

Question 8

Lewis v Daily Telegraph

Answer 8

Newspaper reported that C investigated by police. Ordinary man knows it doesn’t imply guilt, not defamatory

Question 9

Tolley v Fry

Answer 9

Amateur golfer case on ad w/out permission, suggested sponsorship. Liable, because imply that he wasn’t an amateur.

Question 10

Charleston v NGN

Answer 10

Suggest actors made porn, faces superimposed on bodies.
→ Article must be read as a whole, allegation denied in the article. People who make up their mind just bc of headline aren’t reasonable readers

Question 11

Lord McAlpine

Answer 11

Tweet ‘I don’t know why he’s trending (innocent face)’ Liable

Question 12

Berkoff v Burchill

Answer 12

She said in her article: 1 hideous looking 2: Frankenstein better looking → ‘Repulsive’ could hinder his career (actor). Ridicule is defamatory if it goes further than poking fun.

Question 13

Elton John v Guardian News & Media

Answer 13

Mock diary entry about his charity ball. Suggest selfishness, no interest in charity. + Risk that reader would beliver he wrote it → Not defamatory. Article clearly ironic, no one would believe. Irony can’t be defamatory

Question 14

McLibel case (before the act)

Answer 14

Environmental activists’ pamphlets criticising McDo. McDo won in defamation. ECJ: sued for ‘inhibition on their freedom of speech’ for © to be able to sue just on basis of reputation and not profit loss → ECJ: Unjust restriction

Question 15

Jameel v Wall street Journal

Answer 15

Newspaper argued that © = people in legal sense, not human sense, shouldn’t have the same protection → Upheld common law principle, © can sue, trading reputation is important

Question 16

Newstead v London Express

Answer 16

Trial for bigamy, identify him by name, age, location. Another one corresponds to description, sues → If risk of coincidence = “by the party who puts them into circulation”. Liable

Question 17

Hulton v Jones

Answer 17

Writer made up a name and wrote bad things about the character, real person sued; Liable. Intention to defame that particular claimant is not a requirement.

Question 18

Knupffer v London Express Newspaper

Answer 18

D article implied he was an agent of Hitler, not named. → test: would the words lead ppl who know C to believe article referred to him?

Question 19

Jameel v Dow Jones

Answer 19

Publication on the Internet (link him to terrorism). Read by 5 people in UK; 3 knew him → Can’t sue for minimal publications must have substantial number of hits, it is an abuse of process.

Question 20

Lucas-Box v NGN

Answer 20

Truth defence: Not fail if bits untrue do not seriously harm. Sting of allegation must be true (now Act: statement must be substantially true)

Question 21

Telkinoff v Matesuvitch

Answer 21

Honest Opinion defence: T wrote article criticsing BBC’s Russian service for over- recruiting ppl from ethnic minorities. M= u racist bro
→ Had to show comment was based on article.

Question 22

Spiller v Joseph

Answer 22

Honest Opinion defence: Comment must identify in general terms what has led the commentator to make the comment (now in the act)

Question 23

Reynolds

Answer 23

Defence of Publication on matter of public interest; Allegations about Irish PM. When do newspaper who have behaved responsibly have defence even though they can’t show everything is true?

Lord Nicholls: 10 factors seriousness, source, urgency of matter, opportunity to clarify, tone etc.
→ Subsequently, concern that treated as series of hurdles, restrictively applied ≠ Nicholls: ‘not exhaustive and weight given to each factor vary’. (Corrected in Jameel)

Question 24

Jameel

Answer 24

Publication on matter of public interest defence: Reject idea that Nicholls listed ‘test’, only indicative. Have to look at circumstances, responsible journalism = objective.

Question 25

Flood v Times Newspapers

Answer 25

Allegations of corruption, police officer. Wasn’t him. But only reporting allegations made, in the public interest.

Question 26

A v UK

Answer 26

Defence of privilege: Absolute privilege. MP referred to her as ‘neighbour from hell’ ECJ: immunity not incompatible w/ human rights, designed to protect Parliament → Freedom parliament > S.o’s reputation:

Question 27

Adam v Ward

Answer 27

Qualified privilege. Reciprocal relationship. A has duty to talk, B has interest in receiving information. The defence of qualified privilege is based on public policy. It is usually analysed in terms of duty and interest.

Question 28

Clift v Slough Borough Council

Answer 28

Council blacklisted C, circulated details of how bad she was. ‘duty to tell council workers about her’ → Info circulated more widely than needed. Not all of the statements were privileged.

Question 29

John v MGN

Answer 29

Remedies: Headline alleging eating problem → Damages = primary remedy. Because injunction can’t address past publication.

Question 30

Bonnard v Perryman

Answer 30

Remedies: Very hard to get injunction forward in time of publication > speech

Question 31

McMannus v Beckham

Answer 31

Posh accused loudly store of selling fake autographs of David. Newspaper. Foreseeable, bc she’s famous. No injustice, liable.

Question 32

Grobbelaar v NGN

Answer 32

Football goalkeeper. 1/ accused of taking bribes to fix match 2/ whether he let goal in. → Not liable. He had agreed to throw the game, but hadn’t actually done it. “tort of defamation protects those whose reputation has been unlawfully injured, affords no protection to those who don’t deserve protection”

Question 33

Libel

Answer 33

Permanent form, actionable per se

Question 34

Slander

Answer 34

Transient form; Prove damage of some kind - Imputing criminal offence punishable by imprisonment - Slander in respect of someone’s employment

Question 35

Absolute privilege

Answer 35

Applies for: Parliament,

Judicial proceedings, Senior officers of State

Question 36

Qualified privilege

Answer 36

statement made in privileged occasion w/out malice.

References (job etc), Reports to the police, Peer-reviewed statement in academic journal

Question 37

HRA 1998: S12

Answer 37

Freedom of expression – requires court to pay particular attention if the
right to freedom of expression might be affected

Question 38

ECHR

Answer 38

Art 8: Right to respect for private and family life
Art 10: Right to freedom of expression, subject to the conditions necessary in a
democratic society (includes expressly ‘protection of reputation’)