Defamation Cases - Tort

?
Tim Yeo MP v Times Newspapers [2014] EWHC 2853 (QB)
the view that if a jury trial is not in a position to save the justice system time and money, its use is virtually redundant in the modern law of defamation. See Reynolds privilege.
1 of 46
Webb v Beavan (1883)
Direct imputation of a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment. Imputation of unfitness or incompetence. Under s.2 Defamation Act 1952.
2 of 46
South Hetton Coal Co v North-Eastern News Assn [1894] 1 QB 133
An action of libel will lie at the suit of an incorporated trading company in respect of a libel calculated to injure its reputation in the way of its business, without proof of special damage.
3 of 46
Jameel v Wall Street Journal (Europe) [2006] UKHL 44
entitled to pursue a remedy in a defamation action without being required to allege or prove that the publication complained of had caused it actual damage.
4 of 46
Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
Defamation; local authority; right to bring action for protection of administrative reputation; public interest in scrutiny; whether authority entitled to maintain action in defamation
5 of 46
Sim v Stretch (1936) 52 TLR 669
to determine whether or not a statement was defamatory, one should ask ‘….would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of rightthinking members of society generally?
6 of 46
Youssopoff v MGM (1934) 50 TLR 581
Film made about Rasputin and made false claims he *****/seduced somebody. The defamation was the picture on the screen
7 of 46
Monson v Tussauds [1894] 1 QB 671
claimant had been tried for murder in Scotland and a verdict of not proven had been found. The defendants exhibited an effigy of the claimant in London, and another party did the same in Birmingham, in both cases in close proximity to the ‘Chamber of
8 of 46
Berkhoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008
D in 2 articles made comments about C that mean that he was ‘hideously ugly’ and therefore were defamatory, since they would tend to expose him to ridicule and/or would tend to cause other people to shun or avoid him
9 of 46
Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818
the two defendants by allowing the defamatory statement to remain on the wall of the club were taking part in the publication of it.
10 of 46
Tolley v Frye [1931 AC 333
innuendo. D without the claimant’s knowledge or consent, published adverts showing the C with bars of the Ds chocolate protruding from their back pockets
11 of 46
Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234
Reading between the lines - no defmation
12 of 46
Huth v Huth [1915] 3 KB 32
Butler read letter to wife, unintentional publication. The imposition of fault on someone for doing something they did not intend to do, or foresee might happen, would be an unreasonable restriction on persons freedom of speech
13 of 46
Theaker v Richardson [1962] 1 WLR 151
Unintentional publication. wrote to married woman. it would be reasonable for the defendant to have anticipated publication to a third party, and defamation was present here.
14 of 46
Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283
Film about Great Train Robbery called the detective ‘incompetent buffoon.’ Which newspaper then went onto repeat. ' Defamatory statements are objectionable not least because of their propensity to percolate through.'
15 of 46
McManus v Beckham [2002] 1 WLR 2982
Accused shop owner of selling fake autographs of her husband. publication of B's remarks by independent third parties broke the chain of causation between the original publication and the damage suffered through republication.
16 of 46
Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68
A blogging service operated by D. A strong argument in support of the defendant being a publisher rather than a distributor.
17 of 46
Hulton v Jones [1910] AC 20
Fictional character with same unusual name as fellow local. ‘A person charged with libel cannot defend himself by showing that he intended in his own breast not to defame, or that he intended not to defame the plaintiff, if in fact he did both.’
18 of 46
Newstead v London Expr Newsp [1940] 1 KB 377
statement made about harold which was true so not defamatory but man with the same name age and from same area it was deemed as defamatory.
19 of 46
O’Shea v MGN [2001] EMLR 40
‘place an impossible burden on a publisher if he were required to check if every true picture of someone he published resembled someone else who, because of the context of the picture, was defamed’.
20 of 46
Knuppfer v London Express Newspapers [1944] AC 116
called a group of 2000 people young hitlers. The court held that in such cases, the test must be whether any part of the statement could be taken to identify the claimant sufficiently, however, here that had not happened.
21 of 46
Bookbinder v Tebbit [1989]1 WLR 649
Defences - Truth. D claimed C spent public money on things but the statement was true so the 'common sting' cannot be used.
22 of 46
Associated Newspapers v Burstein [2007] EWCA Civ 600
Theatre critic provided a scathing review, court held that confirmed spite or malice would only ever be of significance if it revealed that opinion not honestly held. Here, the review was reflective of the opinion the critic held.
23 of 46
Watt v Longsdon [1930] 1 KB 130,
Wrote a letter to board of company chairmans and the Cs wife. Communications to chairmans was held privilege as they had right to know but not to Cs wife.
24 of 46
Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135
finding that the defendant did not honestly believe the truth of what was said, or was reckless as to its truth or falsity, invalidated the use of qualified privilege as a defence.
25 of 46
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127
D falsely said C had lied to parliment. D only printed 1 side of the story. This was tantamount to a facilitating a public finding of guilt, without the opportunity for the public to consider the case for innocence. See Reynolds Defence.
26 of 46
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (2-5) [2001] EWCA Civ 1805
The court argued it was a different bread of defence from traditional qualified privilege, and as such, had a wider scope.
27 of 46
Bonnick v Morris [2002] UKPC 31
The court advocated ‘responsible journalism’.
28 of 46
Jameel v Wall St Journal Europe SPRL (3) [2006] UKHL 44
The court agreed Reynolds test should be applied flexibly and generously.
29 of 46
Seaga v Harper [2008] UKPC 9
Judgment suggested Reynolds should be extended to cover non-media publications.
30 of 46
Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11
Reynolds likely to succeed where the defendant can show they have a reasonable basis for believing the allegation to be true.
31 of 46
Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001] QB 201
an internet site was sued but the defendant argued it was not an author, editor or publisher.
32 of 46
Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd [1994] QB 670
Damages were traditionally assessed by the Jury, as part of their function in defamation proceedings, however, for practical reasons, s.8 Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 provides a discretion to the courts to amend damages awards up or down.
33 of 46
Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269
court found that an injunction should not be granted if the defendants intended to use a defence of justification for the statement.
34 of 46
Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1462
the defendant intended to publish statements about the claimant concerning communications she had had with a convicted criminal as part of a business relationship they had together.
35 of 46
Campbell v MG
‘The values embodied in Articles 8 and 10 are as much applicable in disputes between individuals or between an individual and a non-governmental body such as a newspaper as they are in disputes between individuals and a public authority.’
36 of 46
Douglas v Hello! [2001] 2 WLR 992
court rejected their claim, determining that at trial, any defamatory issues would be resolved and damages would provide an adequate remedy if any tortious action could be established.
37 of 46
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2004] UKHL 22
Photos of C attending a drugs meeting to beat her addiction, D claimed in public interest then courts agreed but C appealed.
38 of 46
HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers [2006] EWCA Civ 1776
D gained copies of C diary, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information in question?
39 of 46
McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1716
D wrote a book about C. injunction was obtained against further publication. nformation was of a confidential nature, was obtained in a relationship of confidence based upon friendship, and carried with it ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy.
40 of 46
Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53
Went on a prison visit, ***** searched and C suffered from cerebral palsy and got PTSD from the event. proposed tort of invasion of privacy. no ‘principle of privacy so abstract as to include the circumstances of the present case’.
41 of 46
Wainwright v UK (2007),
European Court of Human Rights held that the Home Office had been in breach of both Articles 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
42 of 46
Von Hannover v Germany (2004) EMLR 379
subject of much media attention over a sustained period of time, complained at the publication of photographs taken of her withour her permission. Courts said distinction needs to be made between details of private life and reporting facts.
43 of 46
AAA v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 554
Paternity dispute. due to the high profile of C(boris johnson) it was in the publics interest.
44 of 46
Venables v News Group Newspapers [2001] 1 All ER 908
Cimed injunctive relief to protect details of his new identity from being published.
45 of 46
Mosley v UK [2011] 53 EHRR 30
Dhad breached a positive duty under art 8 to notify him of the story in advance of publication.
46 of 46

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Direct imputation of a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment. Imputation of unfitness or incompetence. Under s.2 Defamation Act 1952.

Back

Webb v Beavan (1883)

Card 3

Front

An action of libel will lie at the suit of an incorporated trading company in respect of a libel calculated to injure its reputation in the way of its business, without proof of special damage.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

entitled to pursue a remedy in a defamation action without being required to allege or prove that the publication complained of had caused it actual damage.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Defamation; local authority; right to bring action for protection of administrative reputation; public interest in scrutiny; whether authority entitled to maintain action in defamation

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Tort Law resources »