Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
21 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Two types of Defamation
|
Libel and Slander
|
|
|
Libel
|
Is a defamatory statement in permanant form.
|
|
|
Slander
|
Defamation in a transitory form, generally actionable only with proof that C suffered special damage, usually financial.
|
|
|
4 Situations in which proof of damage not required.
|
1. Imputation of criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment.
2. Imputation of a disease - contagious or infectious 3. Imputation of unchasity or adultry in a woman (Slander of Women Act 1891) 4. Imputation of unfitness or incompetence in an office, profession or business (Defamation Act 1952) |
|
|
Three basic requirements for the action in defamation
|
1. A defamatory statement
2. Which refers to the claimant, and 3. that statement is published |
|
|
A Defamatory Statement
|
Winfield's definition - based on Sim v Stretch (1936)
Is the publication of statement which tends to lower person in estimation of right thinking members of society generally; or which tends to make them shun or avoid yhag person. |
|
|
Byrne v Dean (1927)
|
It was held that implication that member of golf club informed police of illegal activities of fellow members would lower him in eyes of right thinking people.
|
|
|
Innuendo
|
At times defamatory statements may not be self evident.
2 types of innuendo True or Popular. |
|
|
True Innuendo
|
Applies to situation in which additional facts must be placed by claimants in order to establish defamatory meaning for the statement. - Tolley v Fry (1931)
|
|
|
Tolley v Fry (1931)
|
Innocent chocolate advert featuring famous golfer only became defamatory when amateur status was known, thereby implying that being paid for endorsing product would jeparodize that status.
|
|
|
Popular Innuendo (False)
|
Requires knowledge of alternative or slang meanings of words, or 'reading between the lines'. e.g. gay or grass.
|
|
|
Allsop v Church of England Newspaper (1972)
|
It was required that C specifically plead defamatory meaning of word 'bent' .
See Lewis v Daily Telegraph (1964) |
|
|
Which Refers to Claimant
|
Hulton v Jones [1910]
Artemus Jones, a barrister, brought successful defamation action against newspaper for publishing an article which refers to a fictitious churchwarden with same name. |
|
|
Morgan v Odhams Press (1971)
|
Where it was held that a picture was capable of impliedly defaming the C
|
|
|
Newstead v London Express Newspaper (1940)
|
Where statement was true of someone other than the C.
|
|
|
O'Shea v MGN (2001)
|
C failed in a defamation action based upon her resemblance to model on Porn website. If 'strict liability' approach was applied, it would have placed such a heavy burden on publishers as to constitute significant restriction on art. 10 ECHR.
|
|
|
Group or Class Defamation
|
Knupffer v London Express Newspapers (1944) - If words refer to small enough group that they may be taken to refer to each member; then it may be actionable.
|
|
|
Publication
|
Defamatory statement must be communicated to 3rd party, other than the claimant. Publication to one's spouse is not treated as being to a 3rd party.
|
|
|
Publication - Reasonable foresight
|
Complications arise when D did not intend 3rd party to read statement.
Huth v Huth - D had posted letter to C but it was opened and read by Butler. Not reasonably foreseeable. D would not be treated as having published defamatory words. |
|
|
Repetition
|
Every repetition constitutes fresh defamation and is actionable. See Defamation Act 1952
Slipper v BBC (1991) -held repetition was arguably the 'foreseeable' result of the publication and therefore D's possible responsibility for it should be put to jury. |
|
|
Limits to the action in defamation
|
Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers 1993
To allow local authorities and Gov bodies to sue for defamation would have 'Chilling effect' inhibit free public debate on politics. |
