Defamation - Communication must refer to the claimant
C must be referred to by name, class or complete description & D will be liable even if unintended when an ordinary, reasonable man (or 1 actual person) thought it referred to derogatory issues
1 of 14
Defamation - Communication must be published
ISPs can be liable - Demon Internet Ltd [2001] & Search Engines cannot be liable - Metropolitan Int. Schools [2009] & Unless notified of comments and no action taken - Tamiz v Google [2013]
2 of 14
Defamation - Communication must be defamatory
Lord Atkin in Sim v Stretch [1936] "Would the communication lower the plaintiff in the estimation if the right thinking members of society?" & S 7 Defamation Act 1996
3 of 14
S 7 Defamation Act 1996 - Statements are defamatory if it would cause an ordinary, reasonable person to:
1. think less of the subject as a person 2. think less of the subject's ability to perform work 3. Shun or avoid the person 4. treat the subject as an object of ridicule
4 of 14
4 types of Slander are actionable per se:
1. Imputing a criminal offence 2. Imputing a contagious disease 3. Imputing unfitness in office/calling 4. Imputing a lack of chastity
5 of 14
2 Preliminary Questions
1. Locus Standii - standing to sue. 2. Is there serious harm?
6 of 14
1. Locus Standii - standing to sue.
Corporations can sue - McDonalds v Steel and Morris [1997] & Public Bodies cannot sue - Derbyshire CC v Times News [1993] & Universities can sue - Duke v University of Salford [2013]
7 of 14
2. Is there serious harm?
S1 Defamation Act 2013 - A statement is not defamatory unless it's publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the Claimant
8 of 14
Defamation Defences
Truth, Honest Opinion, Privileged, Consent
9 of 14
Defamation Defence - Truth
1. Truth (Def Act 2013 S 2) D needs to prove statement true (or find another publication which says it when he published)
10 of 14
Defamation Defence - Honest Opinion
Honest Opinion (Def Act S3) 4 requirements -1. Statement of opinion 2. opinion is in public interest 3. an honest person could've held opinion 4. on basis of any facts in existence at time of publication
11 of 14
Defamation Defence - Privilidge
3. Prviliges: Absolute, Qualified or Reynolds
12 of 14
Defamation Defence - Consent
4. Consent - Chapman [1932]
13 of 14
Defamation Remedies
Def Act 2013: S12 Court can order publication of summary of judgement. s13 Court can order removal of material & Def Act 1996 ** 2-4: Offers of Amends
14 of 14
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Defamation - Communication must be published
Back
ISPs can be liable - Demon Internet Ltd [2001] & Search Engines cannot be liable - Metropolitan Int. Schools [2009] & Unless notified of comments and no action taken - Tamiz v Google [2013]
Card 3
Front
Defamation - Communication must be defamatory
Back
Card 4
Front
S 7 Defamation Act 1996 - Statements are defamatory if it would cause an ordinary, reasonable person to:
Comments
No comments have yet been made