Flashcards in Tort - Defamation Cases Deck (23)
Sim v Stretch
Maid case - borrowed money.
Words are defamatory when they lower the claimant in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
Youssoupoff v MGM
Princess & Rasputin
Words are defamatory when they cause claimant to be shunned and avoided.
Parmiter v Coupland
allegedly corrupt mayor articles
Words are defamatory when they expose the claimant to hatred, contempt and ridicule.
J'Anson v Stuart
"Swindler" + 'name was very similar to..."
Where C is not named, test is whether the description was so detailed that a reasonable person would assume the article was about C.
Campell v MGN
Misuse of private info
C photographed leaving rehab
C can claim breach of confidence where:
1) info was private (C had reasonable expectation of privacy)
2) there is no legitimate public interest in disclosing the information (i.e. proof o flying, illegal behaviour, political figure's role in public life).
Lewis v Daily Telegraph
Must consider the true meaning of the words
All statements are presumed to be false until proven by D (defence of truth - complete defence)
Charleston v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd
Must consider the entire context in which the statement was made.
Allsop v Church of England Newspaper Ltd
Consider Innuendo, extended meaning or slang
Cassidy v Daily Mirror
Consider the extended meaning through the extrinsic facts known to the people to whom the statement is published
Hulton v Jones
No need to reference the exact name, as long as reasonable person would understand it to be referring to C.
Knupffer v London Express Newspaper
In general, a member of a group cannot sue because his group / class has been defamed.
Foxcroft v Lacey
Member of can sue for defamation of group if group is small enough to reflect upon each member inc. C
McManus v Beckham
e.g. of publication/communication:
Vizetelly v Mudie's Select Library Ltd
letters not foreseeable to be read by third party and statements later repeated by someone else are not publications.
Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd
Publication on the internet.
Defamation Act 2013 s3
Honest Opinion defence:
a) (s3(2)) statement complained of was a statement of opinion
b) (s3(3)) statement indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion
c) (s3(4)) an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of:
(i) any fact that existed at the time the statement was published
(ii) anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement.
S3(5) - Malice - Defence can be defeated by showing D didn't hold opinion.
Defamation Act 2013 s4
Absolute Privilege defence - matter of public policy and is an absolute defence:
s4(1)(a) - Public interest
s4(1)(b) - Act responsibly
- Parliamentary statements
- Parliamentary reports
- Statements made by spouses to each other
- Statements made in judicial proceedings
- Statements made between Client and lawyer (More v Weaver)
More v Weaver
Statements made between client and lawyer are privileged.
Adam v Ward
Where there are legal or moral reasons to inform and be informed of a statement - statement is privileged.
British Chiropractic Association v Singh
Scientific and academic writing is privileged.
Defamation Act 2013 S1(3)(c)
Defence of Innocent Dissemination:
1. Not author, editor or publisher
2. Reasonable steps to ascertain whether defamatory
3. No knowledge that material was defamatory
Defamation Act s2
Offer to make amends - where D has published innocently and has taken reasonable steps to ensure its accuracy.