Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Defamation - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Derbyshire CC v Times Newspaper Ltd (1993):
        
        Facts: The local authority brought an action against the publisher of a newspaper, its editor and 2 journalists about an article about the local authority's investment and control of its superannuation fund
        
        Held per Lord Keith: "its of the highest public importance that a democratically elected government body, or indeed any governmental body, will be open to uninhibited public criticism"
- - - - Held:
        
        CA agreed that HC judge that C had met the "serious harm" test in S(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 (the Act). It applied different reasoning and made new findings on how the test must be applied
        
        Most importantly, the CA reaffirmed the old common law principle that the cause of action for libel arises at the time of publication
    - - Theedom v Nourish Training t/a CSP Recruitment (2015):
        
        Facts: C worked for CSP in Leicester. Later, 2 of his colleagues, later becoming his GF, left to a rival firm. C's employment with CSP came to and end following a meeting between him and the managing director, where he was accused of leaking confidential info to his ex colleague and their new employer. The management partner of CSP sent emails to 124 different email addresses that said "dissed for gross misconduct" and accused C of passing confidential info to his ex-colleagues and their rival employer, with 115 of those emails stating that CSP was considering criminal proceedings against him
        
        The main issue at hand:
        
        To determine the actual defamatory words complained of
        
        To determine per S1(1) DA 2013, whether the publication of the words complained of has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to C's reputation
        
        Decision:
        
        The issue of serious harm must be considered in light of circumstances, present case:
        
        Defamatory words of a fairly high degree of gravity
        
        Publication to fairly substantial audience, both in terms of number (over 100) and also considering proximity + potential importance to C's career
        
        A vulnerable C in the form of a young man (25 yrs) starting out in a competitive business and trying to make his way; and
        
        An influential and prima facie reliable author of the works complained of
        
        Held:
        
        There would be a inferential case for serious harm to reputation requiring rebuttal. On a balance of probability C had met the serious harm threshold
    - - Bryne v Deane (1937):
        
        Facts: Police found a gambling machine in a golf club. There was an imputation that a member of the golf club had informed the police of an "illegal "fruit" machine. The article was titled "But he who gave the game away may he brynne in hell" LMFAO" . C brought an action for libel stating that by these words D meant and understood that he was guilty of underhand disloyalty to his club members
        
        Held: Held that right-thinking member's of society would regard this as commendable. Test concerns "person generally" - does not necessarily include C's peers / colleagues / friends
  - - - Aspro Travel v Owners Abroad Group PLC (1995):
        
        Facts: D alleged that a family business was going "bust" - Co was insolvent at the time
        
        Held: Since the company was a small family company, all the directors were allowed to sue as the statement imputed that the directors were allowed the company to go bust despite already ailing position
      - Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper (1944):
        
        Facts: Newspaper referred to the "Quisling activities of the Young Russian Party" Group had 24 members in the UK and several thousand worldwide, article referred to activities in France and the US. C complained that D's articles was defamatory in implying that he was an agent of Hitler. He was a representative in Great Britain of a political party in Russian.
        
        Held: Since the article gave no names, C relied on his own prominence / representative character in the movement as establishing in the words referred to himself. C's appeal failed.
  - - - Publications can take a variety of forms:
        
        Communication
        
        Media
        
        Writing - articles, newspaper, letters and others
      - Publications must be intelligible to the recipient, hence, NO publication if:
        
        Its in a foreign language that recipient does not understand
        
        Its tooo deaf to hear / too blind to see
        
        If got to know of statement thru his own wrongful act such as theft of document or through deception
      - Publications must use actual words to set out a claim
        
        Note: Where cause of action is libel, no problem but if its slander, actual words used must be set out in the statement of claim
    - - Huth v Huth (1915):
        
        Facts: D posted a letter to C but it was opened and read by her butler.
        
        Held: CA held that there's no publication even though the envelope was unsealed. It was not part of the butler's duty to pen the letter and his conduct was not a direct consequence of sending it
        
        [Not liable if the statement is overhead by one whose presence is not to be expected / if a letter is read by one who has no authority to do so]
    - - Slipper v BBC (1991):
        
        Facts: BBC made a film about C - literally about the Great Train Robbery unsuccessful attempts to bring a robber back from Brazil, hence giving the impression that he was incompetent. Preview tapes were sent to journalists and the film was broadcasted on BBC 1. C claimed that the film was defamatory and sued for libel
        
        Held per CA: In the case it was a natural and probable consequence of the original publication for which D could be held responsible
  - - - Charleston v News Group Newspaper (1995):
        
        Facts: C was an actor in an Australian tv show.
        
        2 soap star's faces superimposed upon near-naked torsos, with the headlines "Strewth! What's Harold up to with our Madge?"
        
        Held: Court held that defamatory judged by standard of ordinary reasonable person who would've taken the trouble to discover what the article was about
    - - Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd (1929):
        
        Facts: Newspaper published a picture of Mr. C and his fiancee".
        
        Held: It was a true innuendo - non defamatory on the face of it. The fact that the couple is already married gives a defamatory meaning that they were living together without being married.
        
        Immaterial that D was not aware of the extrinsic facts
- - - - Bruna Lachaux v Independent Print Limited & Others (2015):
        
        Facts: C (a french national living in the UAE brought libel claims in relation to 5 newspapers and online articles published in Dubai and UK. The articles described court proceedings against C's former wife (a british national) for kidnapping and included allegations against C for domestic abuse
        
        Held: HC held that natural consequence of the construction was that libel no longer actionable without proof of damage and that the legal presumption of damage will cease to play any significant role
  - - - Special damage - not too remote:
        
        The key question is whether the kind of damage suffered is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of D's act?
        
        Lynch v Knight (1861):
        
        Facts: D told C's husband that C was "seduced" before marriage. C's husband made her leave the house. C alleging defamation and loss of consortium.
        
        Held: Although loss of consortium (the inability of one's spouse to have normal marital relations) is recognised as special damage but was too remote and thus not claimable