Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort > Defamation > Flashcards

Defamation Flashcards

1
Q

Definition of defamation

A

Sim v Stretch - a statement which tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking member of society generally and in particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear and disesteem.

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

Pictures, statues, chalk marks, caricatures can be defamatory (libel)

A

Monson v Madam Tussauds

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

Material on internet is libel

A

Godfrey v Demon Internet

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

Material on social networking sites is libel, even if limited access

A

Applause Stores v Raphael

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

allegations that claimant committed an offence which carries prison sentence

A

Gray v Jones

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

Imputations that claimant is suffering from socially undesirable or contagious disease

A

Bloodworth v Gray

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

Allegations that a woman has been unchaste

A

Kerr v Kennedy

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

Allegations that claimant is unfit to carry on his trade

A

s2 Defamation Act; McManus v Beckham

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

Corporation may sue for defamation (legal person)

A

McDonald’s v Steel

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

Governmental bodies cannot sue for defamation

A

Derbyshire CC v Times

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

Political parties cannot sue for defamation

A

Goldsmith v Bhoyrul

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

Only in extreme cases will defamatory remarks about a politician’s political activities be defamation

A

Lingens v Austria (Reynolds defence will usually apply)

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

Ordinary and natural meaning of words

A

Harvey v French

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

True innuendo - extrinsic knowledge required

A

Tolley v JS Fry

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

False Innuendo - no extrinsic knowledge required

A

Allsop v Church of England; Plumb v Jeyes

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

Defamatory statement must be read in context - does other part of publication throw different light on it?

A

Charleston

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Objective test - in the eyes of law-abiding citizens

A

Byrne v Dean

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Libel claim struck out as man with serious criminal record had no reputation left

A

Williams v MGN

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Does statement cause claimant to be shunned?

A

Youssoupoff v MGN

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Does statement expose the claimant to hatred ridicule or contempt

A

Tournier v National Provincial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Does statement lower claimant in eyes of right-thinking members of society

A

Sim v Stretch

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Allegation of homosexuality = defamatory

A

Liberace v Daily Mirror

23
Q

Claimant does not have to be specifically named, sufficient that statement may be recognised as referring to him

A

Hulton v Jones (same name)

24
Q

A true statement about one person may be defamatory of another of the same name

A

Newstead v London Express

25
Q

Claimant can be identified by innuendo so long as readers would take it to refer to him

A

Cassidy v Daily Mirror

26
Q

Individuals of a group may bring an action if they are identifiable as individuals or where group is so small words apply personally to all the members

A

Knuppfer v London Express

27
Q

Claimant made content of defamatory letter known to others

A

Volenti; Hinderer v Cole

28
Q

Speaking in loud voice

A

White v JF Stone

29
Q

Sending a letter likely to be opened by a third party

A

Theaker v Richardson

30
Q

Original statement likely to be repeated, person making original statement may be liable for further foreseeable repetitions

A

McManus v Beckham

31
Q

Letters where it is not foreseeable that it would be opened by another party are not publication

A

Huth v Huth

32
Q

Internet Service Providers are not automatically publishers, but failure to take down content once requested will be a publication

A

Godfrey v Demon Internet

33
Q

No exception to multiple publication rule

A

Loutchansky v Times

34
Q

Search engines are not publishers

A

Metropolitan International Schools Ltd

35
Q

Justification allowed despite minor error

A

Alexander v North Eastern Railway

36
Q

Justification successful

A

Irving v Penguin Books

37
Q

Malice is that the defendant had no honest belief in the truth of what he was saying or acted out of an improper motive

A

Horrocks v Lowe

38
Q

There must be something from which jury can infer malice (e.g. dishonest motive)

A

Dr Adu v The Charity Commission

39
Q

Letter written motivated by anger not genuine desire to bring wrongdoer to attention of others = malice

A

Angel v HH Bushell

40
Q

Common law qualified privilege protects statements made to protect public or private interests

A

Adam v Ward

41
Q

Statements made in pursuance of a legal, social or moral duty protected by common law qualified privilege

A

Watt v Longsdon

42
Q

For common law qualified privilege, the duty must be reciprocal

A

Downtex v Flatley

43
Q

Jameel

A

Applying Reynolds - is matter in public interest? Malice will not defeat Reynolds defence; Reynolds criteria are a balancing exercise, not a hurdle test

44
Q

Grobbelaar v News Group

A

tone was sustained and mocking campaign of vilification; language of guilt not suspicion

45
Q

Galloway v Telegraph

A

No opportunity to respond to allegation, unbalanced tone of article

46
Q

Honest comment - is opinion honestly held, no matter how obstinate or prejudiced?

A

Convery v Irish News

47
Q

Honest comment - words must be comment not assertion of fact

A

Associated Newspapers v Burnstein

48
Q

Malice will prevent honest comment defence

A

Thomas v Bradbury

49
Q

Defendant must give general indication within the defamatory statement of the facts upon which the opinion is based

A

Spiller v Joseph

50
Q

Innocent dissemination: didn’t know publication was defamatory, nothing in work to suggest it was; no negligence

A

Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library

51
Q

Offer of amends - court may decide damages if offer accepted in principle but no agreement over cost

A

John Cleese v Clark

52
Q

Milne v Express Newspapers

A

Defendant may lose defence of offer of amends if he shut his eyes to the defamatory material

53
Q

Honest comment - must be in public interest (decided by judge)

A

London Artists v Littler

Tort (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions