Defamation Flashcards
Broom v Ritchie & Co
You cannot defame the dead
Derbyshire v Times Newspaper
Public authorities cannot sue in defamation
Cooke v MGN
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
Sim v Strech
Defamatory test: Lord Atkin: would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?
Gillick v BBC
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
Byrne v Dean
Reporting illegal acts ≠ defamatory to right-thinking members
Innuendos
Allusive or oblique remark or hint
Lewis v Daily Telegraph
Newspaper reported that C investigated by police. Ordinary man knows it doesn’t imply guilt, not defamatory
Tolley v Fry
Amateur golfer case on ad w/out permission, suggested sponsorship. Liable, because imply that he wasn’t an amateur.
Charleston v NGN
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
Lord McAlpine
Tweet ‘I don’t know why he’s trending (innocent face)’ Liable
Berkoff v Burchill
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.
Elton John v Guardian News & Media
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
McLibel case (before the act)
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
Jameel v Wall street Journal
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
Newstead v London Express
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
Hulton v Jones
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.
Knupffer v London Express Newspaper
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?
Jameel v Dow Jones
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.
Lucas-Box v NGN
Truth defence: Not fail if bits untrue do not seriously harm. Sting of allegation must be true (now Act: statement must be substantially true)
Telkinoff v Matesuvitch
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.
Spiller v Joseph
Honest Opinion defence: Comment must identify in general terms what has led the commentator to make the comment (now in the act)
Reynolds
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)
Jameel
Publication on matter of public interest defence: Reject idea that Nicholls listed ‘test’, only indicative. Have to look at circumstances, responsible journalism = objective.
Flood v Times Newspapers
Allegations of corruption, police officer. Wasn’t him. But only reporting allegations made, in the public interest.
A v UK
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:
Adam v Ward
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.
Clift v Slough Borough Council
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.
John v MGN
Remedies: Headline alleging eating problem → Damages = primary remedy. Because injunction can’t address past publication.
Bonnard v Perryman
Remedies: Very hard to get injunction forward in time of publication > speech
McMannus v Beckham
Posh accused loudly store of selling fake autographs of David. Newspaper. Foreseeable, bc she’s famous. No injustice, liable.
Grobbelaar v NGN
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”
Libel
Permanent form, actionable per se
Slander
Transient form; Prove damage of some kind - Imputing criminal offence punishable by imprisonment - Slander in respect of someone’s employment
Absolute privilege
Applies for: Parliament,
Judicial proceedings, Senior officers of State
Qualified privilege
statement made in privileged occasion w/out malice.
References (job etc), Reports to the police, Peer-reviewed statement in academic journal
HRA 1998: S12
Freedom of expression – requires court to pay particular attention if the
right to freedom of expression might be affected
ECHR
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’)
