Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Defamation I (6) Publication aka communication to a valid third party (All…
Defamation I
-
Background
If statement causes damage but does not come under rules of defamation then claimant may be able to sue under malicious falsehood or bring a claim based on invasion of privacy
-
-
Rules from older cases may still apply today even though what was considered defamatory then may not be now
Most of liability is governed by common law but some elements of liability are referred to by Defamation Acts 1952, 1996 and 2013
-
-
5) Reference to claimant
-
-
Mistaken identity
Newstead v London Express (1940) - true statement about one person may be defamatory of another with same name
-
O'Shea v MGN (2001) - while defendant can check name, impossible burden to expect them to check photographs
Where a group is defamed - Knuppfer v London Express (1944) - where indicates particular individuals or where sufficiently small that could be said to apply personally to all members - Aspro Travel v Owners Abroad (1996)
-
-
-
3) Loss - serious harm
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 - codified High Court decision in Thornton v Telegraph Media Group (2010)
Cooke v MGN (2015) - prompt apology prevented the potentially defamatory statement from crossing threshold
Monroe v Hopkins (2017) - Warby J confirmed the two tweets had caused claimant serious harm, albeit not grave or very serious harm
S1(2) - for the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not "serious harm" unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss