Defamation Flashcards
Definition of defamation
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.
Pictures, statues, chalk marks, caricatures can be defamatory (libel)
Monson v Madam Tussauds
Material on internet is libel
Godfrey v Demon Internet
Material on social networking sites is libel, even if limited access
Applause Stores v Raphael
allegations that claimant committed an offence which carries prison sentence
Gray v Jones
Imputations that claimant is suffering from socially undesirable or contagious disease
Bloodworth v Gray
Allegations that a woman has been unchaste
Kerr v Kennedy
Allegations that claimant is unfit to carry on his trade
s2 Defamation Act; McManus v Beckham
Corporation may sue for defamation (legal person)
McDonald’s v Steel
Governmental bodies cannot sue for defamation
Derbyshire CC v Times
Political parties cannot sue for defamation
Goldsmith v Bhoyrul
Only in extreme cases will defamatory remarks about a politician’s political activities be defamation
Lingens v Austria (Reynolds defence will usually apply)
Ordinary and natural meaning of words
Harvey v French
True innuendo - extrinsic knowledge required
Tolley v JS Fry
False Innuendo - no extrinsic knowledge required
Allsop v Church of England; Plumb v Jeyes
Defamatory statement must be read in context - does other part of publication throw different light on it?
Charleston
Objective test - in the eyes of law-abiding citizens
Byrne v Dean
Libel claim struck out as man with serious criminal record had no reputation left
Williams v MGN
Does statement cause claimant to be shunned?
Youssoupoff v MGN
Does statement expose the claimant to hatred ridicule or contempt
Tournier v National Provincial
Does statement lower claimant in eyes of right-thinking members of society
Sim v Stretch
Allegation of homosexuality = defamatory
Liberace v Daily Mirror
Claimant does not have to be specifically named, sufficient that statement may be recognised as referring to him
Hulton v Jones (same name)
A true statement about one person may be defamatory of another of the same name
Newstead v London Express
Claimant can be identified by innuendo so long as readers would take it to refer to him
Cassidy v Daily Mirror
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
Knuppfer v London Express
Claimant made content of defamatory letter known to others
Volenti; Hinderer v Cole
Speaking in loud voice
White v JF Stone
Sending a letter likely to be opened by a third party
Theaker v Richardson
Original statement likely to be repeated, person making original statement may be liable for further foreseeable repetitions
McManus v Beckham
Letters where it is not foreseeable that it would be opened by another party are not publication
Huth v Huth
Internet Service Providers are not automatically publishers, but failure to take down content once requested will be a publication
Godfrey v Demon Internet
No exception to multiple publication rule
Loutchansky v Times
Search engines are not publishers
Metropolitan International Schools Ltd
Justification allowed despite minor error
Alexander v North Eastern Railway
Justification successful
Irving v Penguin Books
Malice is that the defendant had no honest belief in the truth of what he was saying or acted out of an improper motive
Horrocks v Lowe
There must be something from which jury can infer malice (e.g. dishonest motive)
Dr Adu v The Charity Commission
Letter written motivated by anger not genuine desire to bring wrongdoer to attention of others = malice
Angel v HH Bushell
Common law qualified privilege protects statements made to protect public or private interests
Adam v Ward
Statements made in pursuance of a legal, social or moral duty protected by common law qualified privilege
Watt v Longsdon
For common law qualified privilege, the duty must be reciprocal
Downtex v Flatley
Jameel
Applying Reynolds - is matter in public interest? Malice will not defeat Reynolds defence; Reynolds criteria are a balancing exercise, not a hurdle test
Grobbelaar v News Group
tone was sustained and mocking campaign of vilification; language of guilt not suspicion
Galloway v Telegraph
No opportunity to respond to allegation, unbalanced tone of article
Honest comment - is opinion honestly held, no matter how obstinate or prejudiced?
Convery v Irish News
Honest comment - words must be comment not assertion of fact
Associated Newspapers v Burnstein
Malice will prevent honest comment defence
Thomas v Bradbury
Defendant must give general indication within the defamatory statement of the facts upon which the opinion is based
Spiller v Joseph
Innocent dissemination: didn’t know publication was defamatory, nothing in work to suggest it was; no negligence
Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library
Offer of amends - court may decide damages if offer accepted in principle but no agreement over cost
John Cleese v Clark
Milne v Express Newspapers
Defendant may lose defence of offer of amends if he shut his eyes to the defamatory material
Honest comment - must be in public interest (decided by judge)
London Artists v Littler
