Defamation Flashcards Preview

Tort > Defamation > Flashcards

Flashcards in Defamation Deck (53):
1

Definition of defamation

Sim v Stretch - a statement which tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking member of society generally and in particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear and disesteem.

2

Pictures, statues, chalk marks, caricatures can be defamatory (libel)

Monson v Madam Tussauds

3

Material on internet is libel

Godfrey v Demon Internet

4

Material on social networking sites is libel, even if limited access

Applause Stores v Raphael

5

allegations that claimant committed an offence which carries prison sentence

Gray v Jones

6

Imputations that claimant is suffering from socially undesirable or contagious disease

Bloodworth v Gray

7

Allegations that a woman has been unchaste

Kerr v Kennedy

8

Allegations that claimant is unfit to carry on his trade

s2 Defamation Act; McManus v Beckham

9

Corporation may sue for defamation (legal person)

McDonald's v Steel

10

Governmental bodies cannot sue for defamation

Derbyshire CC v Times

11

Political parties cannot sue for defamation

Goldsmith v Bhoyrul

12

Only in extreme cases will defamatory remarks about a politician's political activities be defamation

Lingens v Austria (Reynolds defence will usually apply)

13

Ordinary and natural meaning of words

Harvey v French

14

True innuendo - extrinsic knowledge required

Tolley v JS Fry

15

False Innuendo - no extrinsic knowledge required

Allsop v Church of England; Plumb v Jeyes

16

Defamatory statement must be read in context - does other part of publication throw different light on it?

Charleston

17

Objective test - in the eyes of law-abiding citizens

Byrne v Dean

18

Libel claim struck out as man with serious criminal record had no reputation left

Williams v MGN

19

Does statement cause claimant to be shunned?

Youssoupoff v MGN

20

Does statement expose the claimant to hatred ridicule or contempt

Tournier v National Provincial

21

Does statement lower claimant in eyes of right-thinking members of society

Sim v Stretch

22

Allegation of homosexuality = defamatory

Liberace v Daily Mirror

23

Claimant does not have to be specifically named, sufficient that statement may be recognised as referring to him

Hulton v Jones (same name)

24

A true statement about one person may be defamatory of another of the same name

Newstead v London Express

25

Claimant can be identified by innuendo so long as readers would take it to refer to him

Cassidy v Daily Mirror

26

Individuals of a group may bring an action if they are identifiable as individuals or where group is so small words apply personally to all the members

Knuppfer v London Express

27

Claimant made content of defamatory letter known to others

Volenti; Hinderer v Cole

28

Speaking in loud voice

White v JF Stone

29

Sending a letter likely to be opened by a third party

Theaker v Richardson

30

Original statement likely to be repeated, person making original statement may be liable for further foreseeable repetitions

McManus v Beckham

31

Letters where it is not foreseeable that it would be opened by another party are not publication

Huth v Huth

32

Internet Service Providers are not automatically publishers, but failure to take down content once requested will be a publication

Godfrey v Demon Internet

33

No exception to multiple publication rule

Loutchansky v Times

34

Search engines are not publishers

Metropolitan International Schools Ltd

35

Justification allowed despite minor error

Alexander v North Eastern Railway

36

Justification successful

Irving v Penguin Books

37

Malice is that the defendant had no honest belief in the truth of what he was saying or acted out of an improper motive

Horrocks v Lowe

38

There must be something from which jury can infer malice (e.g. dishonest motive)

Dr Adu v The Charity Commission

39

Letter written motivated by anger not genuine desire to bring wrongdoer to attention of others = malice

Angel v HH Bushell

40

Common law qualified privilege protects statements made to protect public or private interests

Adam v Ward

41

Statements made in pursuance of a legal, social or moral duty protected by common law qualified privilege

Watt v Longsdon

42

For common law qualified privilege, the duty must be reciprocal

Downtex v Flatley

43

Jameel

Applying Reynolds - is matter in public interest? Malice will not defeat Reynolds defence; Reynolds criteria are a balancing exercise, not a hurdle test

44

Grobbelaar v News Group

tone was sustained and mocking campaign of vilification; language of guilt not suspicion

45

Galloway v Telegraph

No opportunity to respond to allegation, unbalanced tone of article

46

Honest comment - is opinion honestly held, no matter how obstinate or prejudiced?

Convery v Irish News

47

Honest comment - words must be comment not assertion of fact

Associated Newspapers v Burnstein

48

Malice will prevent honest comment defence

Thomas v Bradbury

49

Defendant must give general indication within the defamatory statement of the facts upon which the opinion is based

Spiller v Joseph

50

Innocent dissemination: didn't know publication was defamatory, nothing in work to suggest it was; no negligence

Vizetelly v Mudie's Select Library

51

Offer of amends - court may decide damages if offer accepted in principle but no agreement over cost

John Cleese v Clark

52

Milne v Express Newspapers

Defendant may lose defence of offer of amends if he shut his eyes to the defamatory material

53

Honest comment - must be in public interest (decided by judge)

London Artists v Littler