Still to learn

Question 1

Skuse v Granada TV

Answer 1

Ratio: Be cautious of being over-elaborate in the interpretation of words.

Question 2

Armstrong v Times

Answer 2

Ratio: When interpreting a statement, consider what the ordinary hypothetical reader would have thought when they read it just once when published.

Question 3

Jeynes v New Magazines

Answer 3

Ratio: Be cautious of finding an over-fanciful meaning.

Facts: An interpretation that because an article called a woman ‘Liza the geezer’ and referred to her fake boobs falling out, people would think the was a man was held to be too fanciful.

Question 4

Parkins v Scott

Answer 4

Ratio: Vulgar abuse is not defamatory.

Question 5

Hough v London Express

Answer 5

Ratio: Example of true innuendo.

Facts: Article stated that a boxer’s wife had curly hair - she did not.

Question 6

Al-Faigh v HH Saudi Research

Answer 6

Ratio: When considering whether right-thinking members of society would think less of the claimant, it is necessary to consider the audience of the publication.

Facts: This publication had a Saudi readership who would be particularly shocked by the accusation that the claimant’s mother sourced prostitutes for him.

Question 7

Hayward v Thompson

Answer 7

Ratio: A claimant can be referenced in a publication by reference to other publications.

Question 8

Islam Expo v The Spectator

Answer 8

Ratio: A series of hyperlinked articles read in conjunction can be held to refer to the claimant.

Question 9

Aspro Travel Ltd v Owners Abroad Group

Answer 9

Ratio: It is possible to defame a group if the group is so small that individuals can be identified.

Facts: The group only had 4 members.

Question 10

Tamiz v Google

Answer 10

Ratio: Failure to remove defamatory material from a website once notified can constitute publication.

Question 11

Lewis v Daily Telegraph

Answer 11

Ratio: If one repeats a rumour, one adds one’s own authority to it - you must be able to prove that the sting of the libel is true, not just that it was published.

Question 12

Stern v Piper

Answer 12

Ratio: Information is not true just because it was in a witness statement.

Question 13

Angel v HH Bushell

Answer 13

Ratio: Common Law QP will not apply if the disclosure is motivated by malice.

Facts: Defendant gave business advice, which is usually covered by common law qualified privilege. However, since he was motivated by malice to give the advice, QP did not apply.

Question 14

Loutchansky v Times

Answer 14

Ratio: Steps taken to verify is one of the Reynolds criteria.

Question 15

Jameel v Wall Street Journal

Answer 15

Ratio: 1. In applying the Reynolds test, consider the seriousness of the allegation. 2. Reynolds test should not be applied too rigidly. 3. In applying the Reynolds test, whether the claimant was given a right to reply should be considered.

Facts: Claimant was given right to reply but asked for time and the article was published anyway. Because of the seriousness of the allegation and the fact the article was well balanced, this was allowed.

Question 16

Kemsley v Foot

Answer 16

Ratio: For the purpose of s.3(3) Honest Opinion, the statement must indicate in general or specific terms, the basis of opinion.

Facts: Defendant alleged Kemsley press was of bad quality on the basis of inaccurate reporting and tone of articles.

Question 17

Thomas v Bradbury

Answer 17

Ratio: Malicious opinion is never honest.

Question 18

Milne v Express Newspapers

Answer 18

Ratio: A defendant will not be held to be innocent for the purposes of entitlement to make an offer of amends if they acted in bad faith by wilfully shutting their mind to information which could have demonstrated the statement was defamatory.

Question 19

Rantzen v MGN

Answer 19

Ratio: Art 10 ECHR should be used to determine what is an excessive award of damages. Held that an appropriate amount is whatever is necessary for the claimant to re-establish their reputation.

Facts: Award reduced from £250,000 to £110,000.