Defamation Flashcards
Berkoff v Burchill
Test for whether words are defamatory = do the words tend to lower the estimation of C in the minds of right thinking people generally?
s.11 Defamation Act 2013
Abolishes right to trial by jury for defamation
Byrne v Dean
The words must lower C’s estimation in the minds of right-thinking people generally - not just a specific group of people
Lewis v Daily Telegraph
The readership of the publication in which the defamatory words are is taken into account - how the reasonable reader would interpret the words
Charleston v News Group Newspapers
BUT you cannot divide up the readership of each type of publication - just one reasonable reader test for each
Cassidy v Daily Mirror
There is true innuendo where facts or circumstances which are NOT apparent from the words themselves give those words a meaning they would not already have, e.g. for specific group of people with special knowledge
E Hulton v Jones
Strict liability for defamation - whether D meant the words to be defamatory is irrelevant
s.1 Defamation Act 2013
Introduces the serious harm requirement for defamation - a statement is only defamatory if it has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to C’s reputation
s.1(2) Defamation Act 2011
Serious harm for companies = have suffered or likely to suffer serious financial loss
Monson v Tussauds
Lopes LJ - libel generally consists of writing or printing, but this is not necessary. Can be in some other permanent form = key to libel
Thorley v Lord Kerry
Damage to C is PRESUMED in libel; for slander damage is not presumed (apart from 2 exceptions)
So for slander, C must prove damage beyond merely that to their reputation - must be some damage ensuing from that, e.g. losing the company of their friends. Whereas for libel, C only needs to prove damage to their reputation
Gray v Jones
If D makes an imputation of an indictable criminal offence, then damage IS presumed in slander
Jameel v Wall Street of Europe
Companies can sue for defamation using the traditional rules that apply to individuals
Knuppffer v London Express Newspapers
A claim is only actionable for a group of people if a) the defamation singles out one specific individual; or b) implies that every single member of the group was subject to the defamatory words
Knuppffer v London Express Newspapers
Size of the group is a relevant factor for determining whether the defamatory statement was targeted at everyone in the group
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspaper
Govt. bodies CANNOT sue for defamation
Goldsmith v Bhoyrul
Political parties cannot sue for defamation
E Hulton v Jones
Note that for strict liability, it is also irrelevant that D did not intend to refer to any real person, or even that D was talking about another person for which the statement is true
Newstead v London Express Newspaper
A mere coincidence does NOT prevent D from being liable for defamation
O’Shea v MGN
Defamation does not apply where C just LOOKS similar to another person, unlike where the person has the same name as another (defamation can apply here).
Meaning of ‘Publication’
Publication means that the statement is made to a third party - this is a basic requirement for defamation, as it needs to lower C’s reputation in the minds of right thinking people generally (Berkoff v Burchill)
Byrne v Dean
Publication can occur by omission - where D knows that the defamatory statement is there and does not take reasonable steps to remove it, then they can still be liable
s.8 Defamation Act 2013
Introduces the single publication rule - once the defamatory statement is published for the first time, that is the ONLY time which the law will regard it as being published. This is relevant for the time period in which a claim must be brought for defamation
s.8(5) Defamation Act 2013
But note that s.8(5) sets out an exception to the general single publication rule - if the defamation is materially different in a subsequent publication, then a new claim may arise
