Defamation

Question 1

Adam v Ward

Answer 1

Ratio: 4 requirements for common law qualified privilege. 1. D had legal, moral or social duty to communicate info (Todd v Hawkins). 2. Recipient had a duty to receive it (Watt v Longsdon). 3. Material is in public interest (Flood v Times). 4. No malice (Lillie and Reed v Newcastle CC)

Question 2

Alexander v North eastern Railway

Answer 2

Ratio: A statement only need to be ‘substantially true’ to be defamatory.

Facts: An article stated the claimant had been imprisoned for three weeks, he had actually been imprisoned for two.

Question 3

Angel v HH Bushell

Answer 3

Ratio: Acting to protect business interests would normally fall under a duty to inform and receive information, so be covered by qualified privilege. However. where malice is involved it will not be covered by qualified privilege.

Facts: A letter warning of a problem with the defendant’s business suggested that the claimant was not conversant with normal business ethics. The claimant sued for defamation. The defendant argued that the statement was covered under qualified privilege. Held that because it was malicious, it was not.

Question 4

Berkoff v Burchill

Answer 4

Ratio: A statement is defamatory in law where it ‘would cause hatred, contempt or ridicule’.

Facts: a newspaper article described the claimant as ‘hideously ugly’.

Question 5

British Chiropractic Association v Singh

Answer 5

Ratio: Example of a statement of an opinion.

Facts: An article criticising the promotion of ‘bogus treatments’ by the BCA left to a claim for defamation. Singh had claimed there was ‘not a jot of evidence’ in favour of chiropractic treatments. The court held this was an opinion, as it suggested the evidence was not worthwhile in Singh’s opinion.

Question 6

Byrne v Deane

Answer 6

Ratio: For a statement to be defamatory, it must lead ‘right-thinking members of society’ to think less of a person, not just their peer group.

Facts: A poster put up at a golf club alleged that a man had reported illegal card games at the club to the police. Held not to be defamatory as a suggestion that an individual had informed the police of a crime would not lower him in the esteem of right-thinking members of society.

Question 7

Cassidy v Daily Mirror

Answer 7

Ratio: 1. Example of a true innuendo, where the extended meaning of an otherwise innocent statement results from extrinsic facts known to a group of people. 2. Reference does not need to be made by name to be defamatory.

Facts: The Daily Mirror published a photo announcing that the two people pictured were getting married. One of the individuals pictured was the claimant’s live-in partner. She claimed that the photo would cause others to have a lower estimation of her.

Question 8

Charleston v News Group Newspapers

Answer 8

Ratio: The potentially defamatory statement must be read in the context of the entire article or advert. This includes any later retractions.

Facts: A photoshopped picture of two Neighbours actors was published, showing them superimposed onto pornographic models. The image came with a caption explaining that the image was fake and so was not defamatory.

Question 9

Cleese v Clark

Answer 9

Ratio: Where an offer to make amends is accepted in principle but the amount is not agreed, the court can determine a reasonable amount.

Question 10

Convery v Irish Newspapers

Answer 10

Ratio: Example of a statement of opinion.

Facts: A restauranteur sued a newspaper after an unflattering review of his restaurant was published. The review was held to be a statement of opinion and so not defamatory.

Question 11

Cornwell v Myskow

Answer 11

Ratio: Example of a defamatory statement.

Facts: A theatre review said that a singer ‘can’t sing, her bum’s too big, and she has the sort of stage presence that blocks lavatories’.

Question 12

Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers

Answer 12

Ratio: Local authorities are unable to sue in defamation, as it would curtail free speech and political bodies need to be held accountable.

Question 13

Farrington v Leigh

Answer 13

Ratio: Where a statement specifically refers to members of a specific class they can sue in defamation.

Facts: Articles in The Observer made defamatory statements about a group of policemen under Chief Constable Stalker, who were referred to as ‘Stalker’s Men’ or ‘members of the Stalker team’. Those individuals were held to be specifically identifiable.

Question 14

Flood v Times Newspapers

Answer 14

Ratio: The court must make ‘such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate’.

Question 15

Foxcroft v Lacey

Answer 15

Ratio: Where the class is sufficiently small, a member may sue as if the statement referred directly to him. Consider both the size of the group and the seriousness of the accusation.

Facts: Concerned a group of 17 individuals complicit in a murder conspiracy.

Question 16

GKR Karate v Yorkshire Post

Answer 16

Ratio: The factors in Reynolds should be weighed up to establish whether a s.4 Defamation Act 2013 defence is available.

Facts: A defamatory article alleged that GKR promoted classes run without qualified tutors, amongst other complaints.

Question 17

Godfrey v Demon Internet

Answer 17

Ratio: 1. Online publication suffices for publication of a statement. 2. Innocent dissemination is not available as a defence if the publisher has been made aware of the defamatory statement.

Question 18

Goldsmith v Bhoyrul

Answer 18

Ratio: Political parties are unable to sue for defamation.

Question 19

Gray v Jones

Answer 19

Ratio: Exception to the rule that slander requires proof of damage - the allegation of an imprisonable offence is damaging in itself.

Question 20

Grobbelaar v News Group International

Answer 20

Ratio: 1. The sting of the libel must be proved to be true. 2. The tone of an article should be considered in determining whether journalists have acted irresponsibly.

Facts: The claimant was accused of taking money to fix matches. He had taken money but there was no evidence of him actually fixing matches.

Question 21

Hinderer v Cole

Answer 21

Ratio: A statement must be published - available to at least one party - in order to be actionable in defamation.

Facts: A man received a letter privately, which would have been defamatory if published.

Question 22

Hulton v Jones

Answer 22

Ratio: Possible for material to be defamatory if it refers to an individual of the same name as another and could be objectively recognised as being the claimant.

Facts; a defamatory newspaper article referred to a person by the fictitious name of ‘Artemus Jones’, the real Artemus Jones sued.

Question 23

Huth v Huth

Answer 23

Ratio: A letter is not published when it is unforeseeably opened by a third party.

Facts: A butler had read a defamatory letter addressed to his employer when it arrived at the house.

Question 24

Irving v Penguin Books

Answer 24

Ratio: If multiple defamatory statements are made, but not all can be proved, it may be irrelevant that some cannot be proved if most are true.

Facts: A British Author was accused of being a holocaust denier. Some specific facts were not proved but the claim was found to be mostly true.

Question 25

Jameel v Wall Street Journal

Answer 25

Ratio: The more serious the allegation, the greater the public interest required to justify it.

Facts: An allegation of potential funding for terrorism implicated the claimant’s company.

Question 26

Knupffer v London Express Newspaper

Answer 26

Ratio: Generally, a reference to a class or a group of persons will not be actionable in defamation.

Facts: An article alleged that a small Russian political party in England were Nazi sympathisers. Held that it was not actionable in defamation as it was not possible to identify individuals.

Question 27

Lewis v Daily Telegraph

Answer 27

Ratio: The ordinary person is fair-minded and not especially scrupulous or naive when it comes to considering the meaning of words.

Question 28

Lillie v Newcastle City Council

Answer 28

Ratio: Qualified privilege does not apply if the content is malicious.

Facts: An investigation into child abuse at a nursery in Newcastle was malicious and untrue.

Question 29

McDonald’s v Steel

Answer 29

Ratio: Corporate bodies can sue in defamation as well as natural persons.

Question 30

McManus v Beckham

Answer 30

Ratio: Exception to the rule that evidence of damage is needed to bring a claim in slander - if the allegation challenges whether someone is fit to carry out their position.

Question 31

O’Shea v Mirror Group Newspapers

Answer 31

Ratio: There is no obligation on publishers to ensure that photos used do not bear resemblance to others as this would be an unreasonably high burden.

Facts: A woman sued over an advert for a pornographic website with a model that looked like her.

Question 32

Plumb v Jeyes Sanitary Compounds

Answer 32

Ratio: Example of a false innuendo - where an innocent statement can take on an extended meaning resulting from slang or colloquialism. In this case, it was created through an image.

Facts: A policeman was shown wiping his brow, with a caption that said ‘I’m dying to use a Jeeves foot bath’. The implication was that he had smelly feet.

Question 33

Reynolds v Times Newspapers

Answer 33

Ratio: Established a 10 point list of considerations as to the standards required for responsible journalism. WHAT ARE THEY?!?!?!

Facts: A report into the PM of Ireland suggested he had misled Parliament without printing the reasons he gave.

Question 34

Roberts v Gable

Answer 34

Ratio: Where a statement is part of an accurate and impartial report, the writer does not need to verify the particular facts.

Facts: An article covered a BNP dispute neutrally, but was accused of being defamatory.

Question 35

Rothschild v Associated Newspapers

Answer 35

Ratio: If multiple defamatory statements are made and the majority can be proved true, it is irrelevant that not all can be proved for the purpose of the defence of truth.

Facts: An article about a deal to buy Russian aluminium plants and a dinner with Lord Mandelson contained what Rotshchild believed to be defamatory statements. Most of them could be proved but some, such as that he had had dinner in a certain place with a certain person, could not. The article was justified on the basis that it was substantially true.

Question 36

Simm v Stretch

Answer 36

Ratio: Defamation = ‘a statement which tends to lowe the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, generally by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule’.

Facts: Claimant alleged that the defendant had accused him of trying to steal a servant.

Question 37

Theaker v Richardson

Answer 37

Ratio: Where it is likely, or foreseeable, that a third party may open a letter or otherwise see a message it can be considered published.

Facts: A man standing for a council election posted a letter through a rival candidate’s door containing highly inflammatory language. Her husband opened the letter, so it was deemed to be published.

Question 38

Thomas v Bradbury

Answer 38

Ratio: A statement made maliciously will never be considered honest.

Facts: A liver case about the publishing of a man’s memoirs and a malicious article written about the man in Punch magazine.

Question 39

Tolley v JS Fry

Answer 39

Ratio: Example of a true innuendo.

Facts: An advert contained a caricature of an amateur golfer with a chocolate bar in his pocket. He alleged that his harmed his reputation as it suggested that he had taken payment for the advert, something he could not do as an amateur.

Question 40

Wennhak v Morgan

Answer 40

Ratio: Statements made to a spouse are not published for the purposes of defamation.

Question 41

Williams v Mirror Group Newspapers

Answer 41

Ratio: If an individual has no reputation left to defame, it is not possible for a statement to be defamatory.

Facts: A man in prison for armed robbery and murder was alleged to be a ‘grass’ in a Daily Mirror article. Held that he had no reputation left to defame and so it was not a defamatory statement.

Question 42

Youssoupoff v MGM

Answer 42

Ratio: A statement will be defamatory in law where it would lead to the claimant being shunned or otherwise avoided.

Facts: A member of the Russian Royal Family said people watching a film produced by MGM would believe she had relations with, or had been raped by Rasputin and this could cause her to be shunned or avoided.

Question 43

Monson v Madame Tussauds

Answer 43

Ratio: If something is permanent it is libel, if it is impermanent it is slander. The context must be considered.

Facts: A waxwork of an individual who had not actually been convicted was placed alongside a gallery of serial killers.