Defamation Flashcards
(9 cards)
Two different types of defamation?
Libel - is a defamatroy statement in permanent form, includes publications etc (TV, writings etc). Is actionable without proof of damage, however C must prove that they have suffered or are likely to suffer ‘serious harm’
Slander - defamation in a non-permanent form, such as a speech or gesture. Usually only actionable with proof that C has suffered special damage, usually ina financial sense.
3 requirements for the action of defamation?
For libel -
* a defamatory statement which causes or is likely to cause serious harm;
* that the statement refers to the claimant; and
* that the statement is published.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Evening Standard Ltd [2019] - defamation
The prevailing judicial position regarding ‘serious harm’ was set out by the Supreme Court in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2019).
Facts - In relation to publications alleging that the claimant had committed domestic violence, it was held that s 1 of the defamation act was intended to raise the threshold of actionability from the previous common law. It was not enough to show that the words have an inherent tendency to cause harm; now the actual impact of the relevant words on the recipients, and other factors including the scale of publication, must also be established
Defamation Act 2013 s1
Defamation Act 2013, s 1(1), a statement is not actionable unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. This provision was intended to raise the bar against claimants and in favour of free speech and therefore its interpretation by the courts will prove significant.
Huth v Huth [1915] – defamation
Facts: The defendant had posted a letter to C’s that stated that contained an implication that the children were illegitimate, but it was opened and read by the butler. The court applied a test of whether this had been reasonably foreseeable, and answered in the negative; therefore, the defendant would not be treated as having published the defamatory words.
- This case highlights that it must be reasonably foreseeable that a third party will read the statement (for libel?)
Byrne v Dean (1927) - defamation
Facts: it was held that the implication that a member of a golf club had informed the police about the illegal activities of fellow members would not lower him in the eyes of right-thinking people.
Cassidy v Daily Mirror [1929] - defamation
Defamation may happen indirectly and unknowingly – liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer
Facts
* The claimant, the legal wife of a prominent racehorse owner and former Mexican General, was separated but occasionally hosted her husband at her flat, where he interacted with her social circle.
* The defendant newspaper published a photo of her husband with another woman, accompanied by his statement that they were engaged. The claimant sued for defamation, arguing the article damaged her reputation by implying she was an immoral woman cohabiting with a man falsely presented as single.
* The newspaper claimed it could not be liable for unintended defamatory inferences drawn by the claimant’s acquaintances, as it was unaware of the specific circumstances leading to that interpretation.
* CA held In favor of the claimant, that the article could make the reasonably minded person believe that the claimant’s moral quality was questionable and that it did not matter if the defendant did not intend to hit the claimant
Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers [1993] - defamation
The House of Lords held that to allow local authorities and other governmental bodies to sue for defamation would have a ‘chilling effect; that is, inhibit free public debate on political matters, which is of the ‘highest public importance
Defences to defamation
- Truth (s2 DA 2013)
- Honest opinion (s3 DA 2013)
- Absolute privilege
- Qualified pirvilege (sch 1, DA 1996)
- Publication in the public interest (s4 DA 2013)
