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;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Libel
|
Defamatory statement in permanent form.
|
|
|
|
Slander
|
Defamation in transitory form
Generally actionable only with proof C suffered special damage |
|
|
|
4 situations proof of damage not required
|
1.Imputation criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment
2. of a disease -contagious 3. unchastity or adultery (Slander of Women Act 1891) 4. unfitness or incompetence in office, profession or business |
|
|
|
3 Basic requirements for Defamation
|
1. Defamatory statement
2. which refers to C 3. Statement is published |
|
|
|
A Defamatory Statement - Winfield
|
(Sim v Stretch)
publication of statement which tends to lower person in estimation of right thinking society generally. |
|
|
|
Byrne v Dean
|
Member of a golf club
Held - would not lower him in eyes of right thinking people |
|
|
|
Berkoff v Burvhill (1996)
|
Mere abuse not actionable.
|
|
|
|
Charlseton v NGN
|
Context will be considered. Publication of photo, headline and text must be read as whole.
|
|
|
|
Innuendo
|
Defamatory statement may not be self-evident
1. True (Legal) Innuendo 2. False (Popular) Innuendo |
|
|
|
True Innuendo
|
Applies to situation where addition facts must be pleaded by C. in order to establish meaning.
Tolley v Fry (1931) |
|
|
|
Tolley v Fry
|
innocent chocolate advert featuring famous golfer. Only defamatory when amateur status was known.
|
|
|
|
False Innuendo
|
Requires knowledge of alternative or slang meaning.
|
|
|
|
Which refers to Claimant
|
Generally straightforward. C may claim D's description of character might be taken to refer to him.
Hulton v Jones - Fictitious churchwarden of same name |
Artemis
|
|
|
Group or Class defamation
|
Knupffer v London Express Newspapers (1994) - if words refer to small enough group they may be taken to refer to each member, then may be actionable.
|
|
|
|
Publication
|
Defamatory statement must be communicated to 3rd party.
|
|
|
|
Publication - Reasonable foresight
|
Complications where D did not intend 3rd party to read statement
Huth v Huth [1915] |
|
|
|
Huth v Huth 1915
|
D posted letter to C it was opened and read by Butler.
Held - Not foreseeable, D not treated as publishing defamatory words. |
|
|
|
Publication - Repetition
|
Every repetition constitutes fresh defamation.
|
|
|
|
Slipper v BBC (1991)
|
Held - repetition was arguably the 'foreseeable' result of publication and D's possible responsibility should be put to jury.
|
|
|
|
McManus v Beckham (2002)
|
Debate over usefulness of foreseeability tesr in cases of repetition, although ultimately appears to have been a difference of opinion over semantics.
|
|
|
|
Defamation and the Internet
|
Raises concerns both with attribution of responsibility and the definition of 'publication' . First major case
Godfrey v Demin Internet Ltd |
|
|
|
Limits to the action in defamation
|
Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers 1993 -
|
|
