Defamation

Question 1

Sim v Stretch (1936)

Answer 1

Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society? per Lord Atkin

Question 2

Yousopoff v MGM Pictures (1934)

Answer 2

Words which may make right-thinking members of society shun or avoid C without any moral discreditation on C’s part are sufficient

Question 3

Tolley v Fry (1931)

Answer 3

Only a particular section of society will not suffice; advertisement defamatory to those who knew he was an amateur golfer; visual images are permanent
Statute says theatrical performances are permanent

Question 4

Byrne v Dean (1937)

Answer 4

Criminals operating an illegal gambling machine where not held to be right thinking memebrs of society

Question 5

Emerson v Grimsby Times (1928)

Answer 5

Draws a distinction between a joke and something which is truly defamatory

Question 6

Myroft v Sleight

Answer 6

Hypocrite (trade union) is sufficient for a claim

Question 7

Berkoff v Burchill (1996)

Answer 7

Able to make a claim as an actor whoh was described as ugly, Miller LJ dissent as ugly is not a set back

Question 8

Charleston v News Group Newspapers (1995)

Answer 8

The whole article must be read to establish if it is a joke

Question 9

Monson v Tussauds (1884)

Answer 9

A waxwork is capable of being defamatory; Lopez LJ considers that chalk board markings are libel

Question 10

Lewis v Daily Telegraph (1963)

Answer 10

False innuendo; reading between the lines made suspect of fraud when really only being investigated

Question 11

Defamation Act 2013 s1

Answer 11

Must cause serious harm or likely to cause serious harm

Question 12

Cassidy

Answer 12

Does not matter if they do not know the statement is defamatory

Question 13

Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers (1993)

Answer 13

Local government bodies cannot sue in defamation as would be contrary to the ECHR and stifle legitimate criticism

Question 14

Goldsmith v Bhoyrul (1997)

Answer 14

Political parties cannot claim

Question 15

EETPU v Times Newspapers Ltd (1980)

Answer 15

Trade unions cannot claim

Question 16

Eastwood v Holmes (1858)

Answer 16

The words “all lawyers” not sufficient to broad

Question 17

Knupffer v London Express (1943)

Answer 17

No specific rule but generally must be published and refer to (i) a very small group or (iii) particularly points to the claimant

Question 18

Morgan v Odhams (1971)

Answer 18

No reasonable reader looking at the report in question would infer the allegations where true (kidnap)

Question 19

Multon v Jones (1910)

Answer 19

Barrister story; wasn’t aware claimant existed

Question 20

Newstead v London Express Newspaper (1940)

Answer 20

Two people living in the same place with the same name, damages reduced as claim was frivolous

Question 21

Thearer v Richardson (1962)

Answer 21

Opened letter to husband which was not marked as confidential, actionable claim as it was “reasonably to be anticipated”

Question 22

Huth v Huth (1914)

Answer 22

Not foreseeable a butler would read mail

Question 23

Slipper v BBC (1991)

Answer 23

Responsible for all foreseeable repetitions/wider sphere of publication

Question 24

Godrey v Demon (2001)

Answer 24

Internet statement is published when accessed

Question 25

Moore v Meager (1807)

Answer 25

Loss of hospitality is special damage

Question 26

Gray v Jones (1939)

Answer 26

Imputation of criminal conduct actionable per se

Question 27

Defamation Act 1952 s2

Answer 27

Imputation of unfitness is business actionable per se

Question 28

Defamation Act 2013 s2

Answer 28

Truth

Question 29

Edward v Bell (1824)

Answer 29

The defamatory sting

Question 30

Alexander v NE Railway Co (1865)

Answer 30

Only got length of the sentence incorrect so no claim

Question 31

Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers (2002)

Answer 31

Difference between conspiracy to commit match fixing and taking bribe; nominal damages

Question 32

Robson v News Group Newspapers (1996)

Answer 32

Unproven allegation of social security fraud not harmful when proven allegation of £4m mortgage fraud

Question 33

Khashoggi v IPC Magazines (1986)

Answer 33

Multiple proven sexual allegations with one unproven, application of Polly Peck form of justification

Question 34

Defamation Act 2013 s3

Answer 34

Fair comment, no public interest justification. Must be a statement of opinion not fact (cannot be from a series of articles per Telnikoff) Some indication of the basis of opinion (in order to encourage minimum standard of debate per Joseph v Spiller) An honest person could have held the opinion based on fact (even if prejudiced, exaggerated etc per Turner v MGM)

Question 35

Adan v Ward (1917)

Answer 35

Anyone who has a interest and duty to share information (defence of qualified privilege)

Question 36

Watt v Longsdon (1930)

Answer 36

Duty to tell employer but not wife