Defamation Case Cards

?
  • Created by: Amy
  • Created on: 30-03-17 18:22
Derbyshire CC v Times Newspaper – council cannot be a claimant.
These sorts of bodies are open to critique everyday, a body in power who sues would be silencing those below, not how a democracy functions, if you cannot critique those in power you are not living in a free democratic society.
1 of 30
Hartt v Newsgroup Newspaper Publishing – Defamatory definition
The statement’s impact judge in accordance with a ‘right-minded member of society’. Right minded member of society is not avid for gossip, capable of reading between the lines, not overly gullible, not overly suspicious, don't jump to conclusions.
2 of 30
Byrne v Dean - a ‘right-minded member of society’
The courts are not concerned with what a section of society actually think.
3 of 30
Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn Mayer – Defamatory definition
The statement need not impute immorality/portray C as of bad character. Princess and Rasputin.
4 of 30
Berkoff v Burchill – attacking appearance
Attacked an actors appearance could be defamation and lower their reputation. However dissenting comments said in the case it was just intended to ridicule and would not lower the actors reputation.
5 of 30
Charleston v News Group Newspapers – articles in context
Articles, newspapers and documents should be looked at in full and in context – reasonable people would not confine attention to salacious headline/photo.
6 of 30
Tolley v Fry
Amateur golfer on a wrapper of chocolate. He has no commercial funding. He was put onto chocolate wrappers. Only those who know about amateur golfers would know who he was – this was defamation.
7 of 30
Newstead’s Case – ‘sloppy’ reporting.
Two men names Harold Newsteads in the community, newspaper said he was a bigamist. One was and one was an innocent hairdresser. The hairdresser was shunned from the community. It was up to the Newspaper to make it clear who they were on about.
8 of 30
O’Shea v MGN – ‘sloppy’ reporting.
Pornographic photo. Woman looked a lot like the model, looked like she had shamelessly advertised a website in this way. The defendants had no idea about the claimant. The publisher may be able to refer to an electoral register impossible for photo.
9 of 30
Theaker v Richardson – the statement must be published.
Sent a letter to the other, husband opened the letter and found the letter and read it. If she had opened it herself that would be private mail. But because it has been communicated to a third party this may be defamation. Reasonably foreseeable.
10 of 30
Huth v Huth – the statement must be published.
letter that was not sealed send in the post intended for Mrs Huth. The butler opened it, the role of the butler is not to open the mail of the masters house. The claim was unsuccessful as it was not reasonably foreseeable it would be published.
11 of 30
Slipper v BBC – the single publication rule
Old detective portrayed badly in a film by the BBC. The content of the film gets repeated. The defendant is liable for republication.
12 of 30
McManus v Beckham – capacity to go viral is important
VB went to a shop and saw things had been ‘signed’ by her husband and she thought they were all fakes. Told people in the shop not to buy them. She slandered the shop. She was very famous so was reported in the news – the grapevine effect.
13 of 30
Godfrey v Dermon Internet – Innocent Dissemination Defence – internet service provider
Active ISP. Claimant notified the ISP of the statement – this makes them active. The defences was unavailable. Up to the ISP to act upon the complaint, if they fail to they are in trouble.
14 of 30
Bunt v Tilley - Innocent Dissemination Defence– internet service provider
Passive ISP. Did not have the knowing involvement – knowledge is a touchstone here.
15 of 30
Metropolitan International Schools – Innocent Dissemination Defence - Google internet search result ‘snippets’
Google gives a number of hits with snippets of text previewing what was beyond the hyperlink. This text was defamatory. There is no human involvement in the snippets – it is purely computerised, the ISP is passive.
16 of 30
Alexander – truth defence – overstatement – substantially true.
Railway company put up a sign with three statements about Alex on them – 2 were true the 3rd a lie. argued this overstatement of his statement made him look worse to right minded people. Railway company were able to access the defence.
17 of 30
Gwynn v SE Railway – truth defence – overstatement – substantially true.
same argument as Alexander but the overstatement went above a minor inaccuracy – defence was not available.
18 of 30
Irving v Penguin Books – truth defence – imputations not substantially true.
D wrote about Irving – three imputations 2 true the 3rd a lie. Defence allowed – the final point could not damage his reputation the other true points were the damaging ones.
19 of 30
Robson v News Group Newspaper – truth defence – imputations not substantially true.
Said C was a benefit fraud – was already charged with other types of fraud – the statement did not dent his already bad reputation.
20 of 30
Telnikoff v Matusevich – honest opinion defence.
Accused defendant as being a racist – stated baldly as fact, by not showing the comment was based on the article – he was not giving the reader the opportunity to question his statement. The defence was not accessible.
21 of 30
Singh – honest opinion defence – asserting fact
The statement ‘not a jot of evidence’ seems to be asserting fact, the courts said it is an opinion because it is commenting on the reliability of evidence. Those sort of things is open to debate. What constitutes evidence will attract judgements.
22 of 30
Spiller v Joseph – honest opinion defence – must indicate basis of the opinion
Indication to a basis that supports an opinion. That must be explicitly done. All the court wants is an indication.
23 of 30
Reynolds v Times Newspaper – public interest defence – media
unsavoury comments made in the media about Irish MP. Here Lord Nichols set out a list of factors relevant to the defence. The list is non-exhaustive and include: tone, seriousness, neutrality, whether C asked for comment & steps taken to verify info
24 of 30
Galloway v Telegraph Group Ltd – public interest defence – media
C’s name mentioned in documents regarding Iraq financial transactions. Report said he took a slice of oil earnings from Iraq Government. They failed to take steps to verify the information from the documents. No attempt to verify the reliability.
25 of 30
Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl – public interest defence
C named as someone under surveillance, bank had received a tip off that he was funding terrorist activity. Named individual was not happy said it was defamation. Took steps to verify the information, gained statements etc. that was enough.
26 of 30
Charman v Orion Publishing – public interest defence
Author had written a book "Bent Coppers". C had resigned as a police officer after a disciplinary panel. He claimed that the book was defamatory. Argued the tone was not neutral. Appeal – allowed – L was an reputable journalist (professional)
27 of 30
Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd - public interest defence
Policeman named in newspaper as possibly corruped. The investigation found nothing, but the newspaper did not update its online story. They were published with the legitimate aim of ensuring the allegations were properly investigated.
28 of 30
Adam v Ward – defence of privilege – has to be made without malice.
overriding duty to publish something. Legal duty to conduct the investigation and to publish it. Investigating a serious complaint, also commented on the falsehood that triggered investigation (MP was a liar). Not defamation.
29 of 30
Stuart v Bell – defence of privilege
people have an interest in knowing the truth about things.
30 of 30

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

The statement’s impact judge in accordance with a ‘right-minded member of society’. Right minded member of society is not avid for gossip, capable of reading between the lines, not overly gullible, not overly suspicious, don't jump to conclusions.

Back

Hartt v Newsgroup Newspaper Publishing – Defamatory definition

Card 3

Front

The courts are not concerned with what a section of society actually think.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

The statement need not impute immorality/portray C as of bad character. Princess and Rasputin.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Attacked an actors appearance could be defamation and lower their reputation. However dissenting comments said in the case it was just intended to ridicule and would not lower the actors reputation.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

tort
See all Law resources »See all Tort Law resources »