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;
25 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
'Sim v Stretch' per Lord Atkin
|
Re DEF 'defamatory' Tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people |
|
'Youssoupoff'
|
Re DEF 'defamatory'
Causes the claimant to shunned or avoided |
|
'Lynch v Knight'
|
Re remoteness of damage
The damage must be 'fairly and reasonably anticipated' |
|
Three elements of defamation
|
1. Statement is defamatory
2. It refers to the claimant 3. It is published |
|
'Berkoff v Burchill'
Re understanding of the def's statement |
Is what the reasonable man would understand, not what the def intended the words to mean
|
|
'Charleston v News Group Newspaper'
|
The 'antidote' to a defamatory comment must be elsewhere in the article where the reader is likely to see it
|
|
'Jones v Skelton'
Re popular innuendo |
DEF 'popular innuendo': the words are defamatory in their ordinary, natural meaning
|
|
'Tolley v Fry' [1931]
|
Ad actionable on the basis of true innuendo
|
|
'Rambo v Cohen' (1992)
|
'Son of a bitch'
Abuse isn't actionable, but the audience must understand it as mere vulgar spoken abuse. Risk for the def - all depends on manner/context |
|
ECtHR 'Steel & Morris v UK' [2005]
|
Re McDonald's litigation
A trading corporation may sue for damage to their reputation or property |
|
'Goldsmith v Bhoyrul' [1998]
|
Political parties cannot sue for defamation
|
|
'l'Anson v Stuart' (1787)
|
Re reference to claimant
Had one eye and a similar name to 'a certain noble circumnavigator' |
|
'Morgan v Odhams Press' [1971]
|
There needn't be a 'pointer' in the article identifying the claimant
(Re kidnapped girl) |
|
'Shevill v Presse Alliance SA'
|
Claimant doesn't have to show that anyone who read the publication actually knew him
|
|
'Hulton v Jones' [1910]
'Newstead v London Express' [1940] |
Unintentional liability e.g. intended to write about a fictional character
|
|
'O'Shea v MGN' [2001]
|
Impact of A.10 ECHR - would be too great a burden to have to check that there wasn't resemblance to any person
|
|
HOL 'Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper' [1944]
|
Re defamation of a group
• Normally not actionable • Crucial Q is whether the words are published 'of the claimant' • The smaller the group, the more likely is actionable [all can sue??] |
|
'Al Amoudi v Brisard' [2006]
|
No presumption that internet material is widely read, but can use number of site views as evidence
|
|
'Riddick v Thames Board Mill' [1977]
|
Unless QP, dictating a defamatory note to a secretary is publication
|
|
'Wennhak v Morgan' (1888)
|
Archaic husband and wife exception to publication
|
|
'Huth v Huth' [1915]
|
No publication where a letter was opened by an inquisitive butler, even though it was unsealed
USUALLY: is a question of what the def should reasonably have foreseen |
|
'Vizetelly v Mudie's Select Library' [1900]
|
Mechanical distributors can escape liability if:
1. They have no knowledge of the libel 2. There was nothing that ought to have led them to believe it was libellous 3. It wasn't through negligence that they had no knowledge |
|
'Bunt v Tilley'
|
Mere online conduits (e.g. search engines) are not liable
Cf. Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations |
|
'Ward v Weeks' (1830)
|
Re repetition
Republication by the voluntary act of another will gen. break the chain of causation |
|
'McManus v Beckham' [2002]
|
Re repetition
Qualification of 'Ward v Weeks' (1830); the def will still be liable where he : - Authorised/intended republication - Was aware of a significant risk of republication i) because of the circ's in which he originally published ii) because the recipient is under a legal/moral duty to repeat |