Defamation Flashcards
Derbyshire v Times Newspapers
Article 10 was relevant in deciding whether it was necessary and proportionate to allow a local authority the right to sue in defamation to protect its own reputation.
Pfeifer v Austria
Concerned balance between Articles 8 and 10. Member States have an obligation to protect individuals against statements which go beyond the limits of acceptable criticism.
Reynolds v Times Newspapers
Common law would not develop subject matter category of qualified privilege whereby political information would never be subject to defamation as it wouldn’t provide adequate protection for reputation. Qualified privilege was available in respect of political information upon application of the established common law case of whether there had been a duty to publish the material.
Flood v Times Newspapers
Article was published implicating the claimant in bribery, held that it was in the public interest that the accusations were published, and the naming of the claimant in the article did not preclude the Reynolds defence, and the defence succeeded because the journalists had reasonably satisfied themselves that the claims were true.
Sim v Stretch
The words would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally
John v MGN
Objective test will change over time, not very demanding.
Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd
Meaning of the words used in their natural and ordinary sense.
Lewis v Daily Telegraph
False or popular innuendo, “reading between the lines” to see meaning.
Sutcliffe v Pressdam
Wife of murderer got £600,000 in damages, on appeal a new trial was ordered as the amount was excessive.
Rantzen v MGN
Court of Appeal used power to lower damages as under Article 10 ECHR the level of damages were too high.
John v MGN
Damages should not go beyond that which was needed to punish the defendant.
Monson v Tussauds
Libel by innuendo, wax statue suggested Monson was guilty of murder.
