Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort law > Defamation - cause of action > Flashcards

Defamation - cause of action Flashcards

1
Q

Manson v Tussauds

A

“libels are generally in writing or printing but this is not necessary; defamatory matter may be conveyed in some other permanent form… a statue, caricature, chalk marks on the wall”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Youssopoff v Metro-Goldwyn Mayer

A

Necessary to show not only that communication is present but also that it is visable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

King v Lake

A

words written and published contained “more malice”, or “more deliberation” than words spoken (Hale CB)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Berkoff v Burchill

A

the test for ‘what is defamatory’ in words:
1. Exposing C to ridicule, hatred or concept

  1. would words tend to make people shun or avoid claimant
  2. (dominant) whether the words tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking people generally (derived from Sim v Stretch)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Bryne v Dean (what is defamatory)

A

Defamation is provided to how people ought to respond to a situation not how they actually did respond

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Lewis v Daily Telegraph

A

Interpret the words as a reasonable reader of this kind of material would give to the words

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Charleston v News Group Newspapers

A

you cannot divide up mass readership - each allegedly defamatory publication has only one correct meaning as a matter of law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers

A

possible that some readers have ‘insider type’ information and interpret the words in a defamatory way that most readers won’t

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Cooke v MGN

A

either it has caused serious harm, or it will cause serious harm (doesn’t have to have already happened)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Thorley v Lord Kerry

A

permanent defamation = damage is presumed in C’s favour

temporary (speech, etc.,) = damage is not presumed, you need to show special damage of some kind (financial, ostracisation, etc.,)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Gray v Jones

A

imputation of an indictable criminal offence (situation where slander is actionable per se)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe

A

corporations can sue in defamation using human individual rules but if they fail to prove they suffered any damage, the damages made in their favour will be lowered

(dissent from Hoffman - companies don’t have a soul, and Hale - freedom of speech, ECHR, should be able to criticise)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Knupffer v London Express Newspaper

A

a member of a group to which a defamatory statement was made, can only sue if the defamatory statement references all members of the group (singles each one out)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Brown v DC Thomas

A

Scottish case - to some extent the size of group is important because if the group is 3 people it’s more likely that you can tell the statement refers to all membres

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Derbyshire Count Council v Times Newspaper

A

government cannot sue for defamation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Goldsmith v Bhovrul

A

Political parties cannot sue for defamation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

E Hulton & Co v Jones

A

strict liability for defamation is established

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Newstead v London Express newspapers

A

strict liability applies even if what you say is about another real person and is true - person with same name can sue for defamation

Defamation - liability is based on who it hits, not what is meant by the words

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

O’Shea v MGN

A

Strict liability doesn’t apply to look-a-like pictures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Bryce v Dean (publication rule)

A

you are liable in defamation even if you are not the person who actually publishes (there are statutory exceptions for postmen, etc.,)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Defamation Act 2013, s.8 - single publication rule

A

once something is published for the first time, law regards that as the only time

  • UNLESS future publications are NOT the same
  • time limit starts running from first publication
22
Q

Robson v News Group Newspapers (1996)

A

If D makes 2 or more distinct imputations against the claimant – as long as you prove the worst one(s) are/is true, you don’t need to successfully prove the lesser ones to use the defence of truth (s.2(3))

23
Q

Defamation Act s.2(1) 2013

A
  • D can only rely on defence of truth if he can show the underlying facts are true
  • D cannot say he thought it was true that the other person said it

(“repetition rule” from common law Stern v Piper)

24
Q

Aspro Travel Ltd v Owners Abroad Group

A

Circumstances MAY warrant repetition of rumour (e.g. Lewis v Daily Telegraph - D stated C was under suspicion)

25
Q

Bookbinder v Tebbit (1989

A

A defamatory statement alleging C did a specific thing cannot be justified by evidence of other misconduct on his part

  • Prove specific meaning of words to satisfy defence of truth
26
Q

Khashoggi v IPC Magazines Ltd

A

D might therefore adduce evidence to justify that common sting even though they might not be able to prove that particular affair

27
Q

Telnikoff v Matusevich

A

The allegations didn’t say words like “in effect” or “in my opinion” – so regarded as a statement of fact

28
Q

British Chiropractic Association v Singh

A

But in many cases, courts have adopted a rather expansive approach to what constitutes opinion or comment

  • Words asserted lacked worthwhile or reliable evidence and thus expressed a value judgement
29
Q

Joseph v Spiller

A

defence of honest opinion: you need to show Indication of the Basis of the Opinion – whether in general or specific terms (this case says general is fine)

30
Q

Dawkins v Lord Rokeby (1873)

A

speech in court absolute privilege

31
Q

Bill of Rights 1688, art 9

A

speech in parliament , absolute privilege

32
Q

Defamation Act 1996 s.14

A

absolute privilege for law reports (if fair and accurate)

33
Q

Chatterton v Secretary of State for India in Council [1895]

A

absolute privilege for official communications between officers of state (defined very narrowly)

34
Q

responsible publication on matter of public interest (common law roots)

A 
Reynolds v Times Newspaper 
Reynolds stated you have to take these things into account:
1.	Seriousness of the Allegation 
2.	Nature of the Information
3.	Source of the Information
4.	Steps taken to verify information
5.	Status of information 
6.	Urgency of the Matter
35
Q

STATUTE (Defamation Act 2013, s.4 – publication on a matter of public interest)

A

new test:

  • public interest
  • d must reasonably believe publishing statement is public interest (politics isn’t de facto, and D needs to ask C for his side and publish that too)
36
Q

DEFAMATION ACT 1996 S.2

A

If offer of amends is validly made, C should accept it

37
Q

Gray v Jones

A

slander is actionable per se in some situations:
here = imputation of indictable criminal offence

(words conveying suspicion that C committed a crime does not support an action without proof of special damage - Simmons v Mitchell)

38
Q

Baturina v Times Newspaper

A

CA said strict liability is fine for the tort of defamation usually (sorted out worries after O’Shea)

39
Q

Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001]

A

can’t use the defence of innocent dissemination if you are told to take down a defamatory post

  • internet service provider failed to after being informed of the defamatory content and requested to take it down
40
Q

Tamiz v Google [2013]

A

CA ruled that the period (if any) for which Blogger was responsible for a comment appearing on one of its blogs, subsequently taken down, was too short for it to have been accessed by significant numbers of readers and that any damages suffered by C was too trivial to allow a claim for damages to proceed

41
Q

Wakley v Cooke

A

If you call someone a “libellous journalist” – it is not substantiated by a libel verdict against him on a single occasion

42
Q

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 s. 8

A

CA can order a new trial on the ground that damages awarded by jury are excessive or inadequate

43
Q

John v MGN [1996]

A

CA said look across at personal injury cases because it wouldn’t be appropriate if English law valued reputation more highly than personal injury

so look across at defamation and awards made for pain and suffering to decide appropriate level of damages for defamation

44
Q

Kiam v MGN Ltd [2003]

A

LJ Sedley – a comparison with personal damages ought to reduce down the damages really quite stringently

  • if someone damaged your organs that should be more damages than for Elton John in this defamation case
45
Q

The Gleaner Co Ltd v Abrahams [2004] 1 AC 628

A

Said the comparison with personal injury damages should only be a broad comparison

Hoffman - different reasons for putting a high value on defamation rewards (achieving something different)
- You can’t make a close analytical comparison between personal injury awards and defamation awards

UP TO TRIAL JUDGE IN THE LIGHT OF PAST CASES TO DECIDE AWARD OF DAMAGES

46
Q

Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027

A

make exemplary damages where

D has made a calculation – it is worth committing the libel, because even if he gets sued and has to pay damages, he will still make a profit overall

47
Q

Scott v Sampson (1882)

A

MITIGATION
D is allowed to prove that C already had a bad reputation and if he does, an award of damages is allowed to reflect that (C’s asset already damaged)

BUT

  • You cannot produce evidence of acts of misconduct that ought to lower his reputation
  • You have to produce evidence to show C already has a bad reputation
  • Otherwise D would just bring up lots of stuff C has done and knock down his reputation in court
48
Q

OFFERS OF AMENDS

A

Essentially – if you make an offer of amends to C in good time, that gets taken into account in the assessment of damages

49
Q

Bonnard v Perryman [1891]

A

Interim injunctions (injunctions before trial has taken place) = problematic

  • involves a direct interference with freedom of speech so only interim injunction in EXCEPTIONAL cases
50
Q

Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2005] QB 972

A

Confirms Bonnard v Perryman is still good law

Even though ECHR allows balancing of C’s equal right to privacy

Tort law (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions