Defamation Flashcards
(28 cards)
Youssoupoff v MGM
Defines libel as addressed to the eye and slander as addressed to the ear
Manson v Tussauds Test
Categorises libel as permanent and slander as transient
Maharaja v Eastern Media Group
English Courts will not rule on claims regarding religious matters or doctrine
S.(1) Defamation Act 2013
Requires claimant to prove that the defamatory statement has caused, or is likely to cause, ‘serious harm’ to their reputation.
S.1(2) Defamation Act
If the claimant is a company, financial loss needs to be proven in order to meet the serious harm threshold
Lachaux v Independent Print
Concluded that the harm must be evidenced by the actual impact on the claimant’s reputation instead of being merely inferred from the content of the statement
Blake v Fox
The facts must be analysed to determine whether the serious harm threshold is met
EETPU v Times Newspaper
Unincorporated Associations do not possess a legal personality and thus do not have the capacity to sue
McLaughlin v Lambeth Borough Council
Local and governmental authorities do not possess the capacity to sue
Sim v Stretch
Statement must have a tendency to lower the claimant’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society
Bestobell Paints v Bigg
False innuendos can still be considered defamatory
Cassidy v Daily Mirror
True legal innuendos can also be considered defamatory
Berkoff v Burchill
Statements which expose the claimant to hatred are considered defamatory
Youssoupoff v MGM v.2
Statements which cause the claimant to be shunned are also defamatory in nature
Baturina v Times Newspaper
Facts given in the statement which could lead a reasonable reader to identify the claimant are as if the claimant was identified
Hayward v Thompson
Element 2: Defamatory Imputation Identified Claimant is satisfied even if the claimant’s identity can be derived from previous publications
E Hulton & Co v Jones
Fictional characters which clearly resemble living persons also satisfy this element (Element2)
Newslead v London Express Newspaper
Large groups do not satisfy element 2 as they are too large to identify and ascertain - however small groups do
Bezant v Rausing
In order to sue the defendant, the publication must be a natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s actions
Bunt v Tilley
An intention to publish is not required, a degree of awareness and/or editorial responsibility under negligence are sufficient. Passive roles which do not play a role are not valid.
Byrne v Dean
If the defendant had the power to remove the publication from online but failed to do so, then the defendant had consented to the publication and was thus liable
Lewis v Daily Telegraph
Repeating a defamatory publication is as if the defendant made the publication themselves
S.8 Defamation Act 2013
Defamation is measured from the date of the original publication, including re-publication unless there has been a material change.
S.4(A) Limitation Act 1980
Limitation period for a cause of action for defamation is twelve months
