defemation mindmap !
- Created by: venny_x
- Created on: 12-02-20 14:52
View mindmap
- Defamation - A tort to protect one's reputation ( claim must be made within a year s8 def act 2013)
- types of defamation
- libel - A permanent statement that is non actionable
- can be in any perminante form such as film, picture, written or even theatre ( Theatres act 1968 s.4)
- must have a serious harm
- only consideres special damage in exceptional circumstances - only when it relates to trade of profit - under the defemation act 2013 - must be shown that it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss
- what is serious harm - cannot be trivial - Cooke v MGN (2014) - despite the apology it was defamatory as someone would think less of the tory's from the statemenet- established distress or hurt feelings os not enough
- must have a serious harm
- can be in any perminante form such as film, picture, written or even theatre ( Theatres act 1968 s.4)
- slander - a statement that is spoken or temporary ( eg. a gesture)
- needs both serious harm and special damage
- special damage is financial loss but in 2 exceptional circumstances
- 1) a statement that a claimant has commited a crime and is punishable by imprisonment
- 2) a statement that a claimant is unfit for any office, profession , calling , trade or business
- special damage is financial loss but in 2 exceptional circumstances
- needs both serious harm and special damage
- libel - A permanent statement that is non actionable
- who can sue ?
- only persons and corporations
- organs of government and political parties cannot sue for definition as it would hinder freedom of speech
- Key : under the Law Reform ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 s.1(1) states that a claim for defimation ends as soon as the claimant of the defendant dies
- organs of government and political parties cannot sue for definition as it would hinder freedom of speech
- only persons and corporations
- Requirement 1 ) a defamatory statement
- slim v stretch - words that tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society ( Lord Atkin)
- this case was about master 1 sending master 2 a telegram that he needed to ' send her position, her belongings and the money you borrowed - clearly not defamatory in the eyes of a right thinking person
- defamation act 2013 s1(1) ' a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant'
- byrne v deane (1937)- a notice was placed in a golf club suggesting that mr byrne snitished that they had illegal gambeling machines in the gold club - held that in the view of a right thinker this would be praise not defimation
- view of an ordinary reader - lewis v daily telegraph (1964) - ' equity on firm by city police ' fraud sporned fimr ' - it stated that they were under investigation and does not explicity state that they were found to do fraud - therefore not demination
- byrne v deane (1937)- a notice was placed in a golf club suggesting that mr byrne snitished that they had illegal gambeling machines in the gold club - held that in the view of a right thinker this would be praise not defimation
- innuendo can also be decimation
- mcapline v Bercow ( true innuendo)- the statemenet did not state eho the politition alledged for sexual abuse was - you would only have known if tiyr had extra information - dematory for some people
- fLewis v daily telegraph ( false innuendo - only when you read in between the lines do you understand that they were implying fraud
- ridicule is not defimation
- defimation is not about feelings - Berkoff v burchill (1996) - ugly like frankenstien
- slim v stretch - words that tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society ( Lord Atkin)
- requirement 2 - refering to the claiment - they must undrstand that it is about them
- Holton v jones (1910) - there were two people named armitage jones. and although the information was correct for the other person , it was dematory for arimitage the solicitor and many of his friends thought the story was about him - Thefore, defamation can be found even if it is evidential
- Group defimation can only occur in small groups - knuppfer v London express newspapaer ltd 1994
- Holton v jones (1910) - there were two people named armitage jones. and although the information was correct for the other person , it was dematory for arimitage the solicitor and many of his friends thought the story was about him - Thefore, defamation can be found even if it is evidential
- requirement 3: it must be published ( sent to a least 1 person
- sharing with your spouce is not defimation but sharing with someone elses spounce is defimation
- what if the publication gets into the hands of the wrong person - The court will see if it was reasonabily forseeable that the publication could have been read by the wrong person
- huth v hutch (1915) hysband send a publication to his wife in a brown envelope that was later opened by the butler. It was not the duty of the butler to open evelopes so it was not a publication
- A defendant making a statement which carries the natural consequence of being repeated by someone else may be liable for the subsequent publication.
- what if the publication gets into the hands of the wrong person - The court will see if it was reasonabily forseeable that the publication could have been read by the wrong person
- sharing with your spouce is not defimation but sharing with someone elses spounce is defimation
- Defences for defemation (can use more than 1 )
- truth - a claim that the statement was true - s.2 of the defimation act - it must be sunstantially true -
- if 2 of 3 statements are true then the defence will work if the false statement fors not seriously harm their reputation - section2(3)
- it works as a full defence Alexander v noth ewstern railway co (1865) - notice that the defentand was cought traving without a ticket - accidently wrote 1pound and 3 weeks imprisonment instead of 1 pound and
- if 2 of 3 statements are true then the defence will work if the false statement fors not seriously harm their reputation - section2(3)
- absolute privilage - allws peopel to carry out thier work without the worry of being susued for defimation - A v uk (2003) - protecting a mp remarks about a claiment in parliament
- Jennings v Buchanan [2004] - Privy Council held that despite absolute privilege, he might still be held liable in defamation if later adopted and confirmed statement, without necessarily repeating it, on an occasion not protected by privilege.
- qualified privilege - a wider privilege to made a statement without malice and belief in its truth - eg
- eg: for moral or social duty - alike telling a higher manager that tyour manger is always drunk on the Job - Watt v langsdon - or referral for a Job
- must be without malice - statutie - scedule 1 and 2 depict siuation were this can be founound
- or s6(6)- requirments for a scientific or acedemic journal
- must be without malice - statutie - scedule 1 and 2 depict siuation were this can be founound
- eg: for moral or social duty - alike telling a higher manager that tyour manger is always drunk on the Job - Watt v langsdon - or referral for a Job
- honest opinion - under section 3 there are requirments - the statement must indicate the basis of opinion . must be based on facts that existed during its creation
- web operates defence- -
- truth - a claim that the statement was true - s.2 of the defimation act - it must be sunstantially true -
- key remedy - interim injuction - barron vines (2016)
- types of defamation
- what is serious damage ?
- s.1 defamation act 2013
- financial loss does not have to have to actually occurred but to merely show that it could have!
- Defamation - A tort to protect one's reputation ( claim must be made within a year s8 def act 2013)
- types of defamation
- libel - A permanent statement that is non actionable
- can be in any perminante form such as film, picture, written or even theatre ( Theatres act 1968 s.4)
- must have a serious harm
- only consideres special damage in exceptional circumstances - only when it relates to trade of profit - under the defemation act 2013 - must be shown that it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss
- what is serious harm - cannot be trivial - Cooke v MGN (2014) - despite the apology it was defamatory as someone would think less of the tory's from the statemenet- established distress or hurt feelings os not enough
- must have a serious harm
- can be in any perminante form such as film, picture, written or even theatre ( Theatres act 1968 s.4)
- slander - a statement that is spoken or temporary ( eg. a gesture)
- needs both serious harm and special damage
- special damage is financial loss but in 2 exceptional circumstances
- 1) a statement that a claimant has commited a crime and is punishable by imprisonment
- 2) a statement that a claimant is unfit for any office, profession , calling , trade or business
- special damage is financial loss but in 2 exceptional circumstances
- needs both serious harm and special damage
- libel - A permanent statement that is non actionable
- who can sue ?
- only persons and corporations
- organs of government and political parties cannot sue for definition as it would hinder freedom of speech
- Key : under the Law Reform ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 s.1(1) states that a claim for defimation ends as soon as the claimant of the defendant dies
- organs of government and political parties cannot sue for definition as it would hinder freedom of speech
- only persons and corporations
- Requirement 1 ) a defamatory statement
- slim v stretch - words that tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society ( Lord Atkin)
- this case was about master 1 sending master 2 a telegram that he needed to ' send her position, her belongings and the money you borrowed - clearly not defamatory in the eyes of a right thinking person
- defamation act 2013 s1(1) ' a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant'
- byrne v deane (1937)- a notice was placed in a golf club suggesting that mr byrne snitished that they had illegal gambeling machines in the gold club - held that in the view of a right thinker this would be praise not defimation
- view of an ordinary reader - lewis v daily telegraph (1964) - ' equity on firm by city police ' fraud sporned fimr ' - it stated that they were under investigation and does not explicity state that they were found to do fraud - therefore not demination
- byrne v deane (1937)- a notice was placed in a golf club suggesting that mr byrne snitished that they had illegal gambeling machines in the gold club - held that in the view of a right thinker this would be praise not defimation
- innuendo can also be decimation
- mcapline v Bercow ( true innuendo)- the statemenet did not state eho the politition alledged for sexual abuse was - you would only have known if tiyr had extra information - dematory for some people
- fLewis v daily telegraph ( false innuendo - only when you read in between the lines do you understand that they were implying fraud
- ridicule is not defimation
- defimation is not about feelings - Berkoff v burchill (1996) - ugly like frankenstien
- slim v stretch - words that tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society ( Lord Atkin)
- requirement 2 - refering to the claiment - they must undrstand that it is about them
- Holton v jones (1910) - there were two people named armitage jones. and although the information was correct for the other person , it was dematory for arimitage the solicitor and many of his friends thought the story was about him - Thefore, defamation can be found even if it is evidential
- Group defimation can only occur in small groups - knuppfer v London express newspapaer ltd 1994
- Holton v jones (1910) - there were two people named armitage jones. and although the information was correct for the other person , it was dematory for arimitage the solicitor and many of his friends thought the story was about him - Thefore, defamation can be found even if it is evidential
- requirement 3: it must be published ( sent to a least 1 person
- sharing with your spouce is not defimation but sharing with someone elses spounce is defimation
- what if the publication gets into the hands of the wrong person - The court will see if it was reasonabily forseeable that the publication could have been read by the wrong person
- huth v hutch (1915) hysband send a publication to his wife in a brown envelope that was later opened by the butler. It was not the duty of the butler to open evelopes so it was not a publication
- A defendant making a statement which carries the natural consequence of being repeated by someone else may be liable for the subsequent publication.
- what if the publication gets into the hands of the wrong person - The court will see if it was reasonabily forseeable that the publication could have been read by the wrong person
- sharing with your spouce is not defimation but sharing with someone elses spounce is defimation
- Defences for defemation (can use more than 1 )
- truth - a claim that the statement was true - s.2 of the defimation act - it must be sunstantially true -
- if 2 of 3 statements are true then the defence will work if the false statement fors not seriously harm their reputation - section2(3)
- it works as a full defence Alexander v noth ewstern railway co (1865) - notice that the defentand was cought traving without a ticket - accidently wrote 1pound and 3 weeks imprisonment instead of 1 pound and
- if 2 of 3 statements are true then the defence will work if the false statement fors not seriously harm their reputation - section2(3)
- absolute privilage - allws peopel to carry out thier work without the worry of being susued for defimation - A v uk (2003) - protecting a mp remarks about a claiment in parliament
- Jennings v Buchanan [2004] - Privy Council held that despite absolute privilege, he might still be held liable in defamation if later adopted and confirmed statement, without necessarily repeating it, on an occasion not protected by privilege.
- qualified privilege - a wider privilege to made a statement without malice and belief in its truth - eg
- eg: for moral or social duty - alike telling a higher manager that tyour manger is always drunk on the Job - Watt v langsdon - or referral for a Job
- must be without malice - statutie - scedule 1 and 2 depict siuation were this can be founound
- or s6(6)- requirments for a scientific or acedemic journal
- must be without malice - statutie - scedule 1 and 2 depict siuation were this can be founound
- eg: for moral or social duty - alike telling a higher manager that tyour manger is always drunk on the Job - Watt v langsdon - or referral for a Job
- honest opinion - under section 3 there are requirments - the statement must indicate the basis of opinion . must be based on facts that existed during its creation
- web operates defence- -
- truth - a claim that the statement was true - s.2 of the defimation act - it must be sunstantially true -
- key remedy - interim injuction - barron vines (2016)
- types of defamation
- s.1 defamation act 2013
- yes forseeable - theaker v richardson 1962 - send in a brown evnalope thought it was an election leaflet - therefore it was a publication
- or on the internet. the person who posted it is the publishher. they will only be equitted from liability is if they have asked the server to take the post down and it has taken a few days to happen - tamiz v google (2013)
- or on the internet. the person who posted it is the publishher. they will only be equitted from liability is if they have asked the server to take the post down and it has taken a few days to happen - tamiz v google (2013)
- publication on a matter of public interest - can be for fact or opinion
- a) must be a matter of public interest b) must reasonably believe they published for public interest ( objective )
- flood v times newspaper lts (2012) - in the public interest to post theinto
- a) must be a matter of public interest b) must reasonably believe they published for public interest ( objective )
- when they believed the ststement is true and it actially lsnt
- offers of ammends
- offers of ammends
Comments
Report
Report