Tort - Defamation - Elements

Front 1

'Sim v Stretch' per Lord Atkin

Back 1

Re DEF 'defamatory'

Tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people

Front 2

'Youssoupoff'

Back 2

Re DEF 'defamatory'

Causes the claimant to shunned or avoided

Front 3

'Lynch v Knight'

Back 3

Re remoteness of damage

The damage must be 'fairly and reasonably anticipated'

Front 4

Three elements of defamation

Back 4

1. Statement is defamatory
2. It refers to the claimant
3. It is published

Front 5

'Berkoff v Burchill'

Re understanding of the def's statement

Back 5

Is what the reasonable man would understand, not what the def intended the words to mean

Front 6

'Charleston v News Group Newspaper'

Back 6

The 'antidote' to a defamatory comment must be elsewhere in the article where the reader is likely to see it

Front 7

'Jones v Skelton'

Re popular innuendo

Back 7

DEF 'popular innuendo': the words are defamatory in their ordinary, natural meaning

Front 8

'Tolley v Fry' [1931]

Back 8

Ad actionable on the basis of true innuendo

Front 9

'Rambo v Cohen' (1992)

Back 9

'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

Front 10

ECtHR 'Steel & Morris v UK' [2005]

Back 10

Re McDonald's litigation

A trading corporation may sue for damage to their reputation or property

Front 11

'Goldsmith v Bhoyrul' [1998]

Back 11

Political parties cannot sue for defamation

Front 12

'l'Anson v Stuart' (1787)

Back 12

Re reference to claimant

Had one eye and a similar name to 'a certain noble circumnavigator'

Front 13

'Morgan v Odhams Press' [1971]

Back 13

There needn't be a 'pointer' in the article identifying the claimant

(Re kidnapped girl)

Front 14

'Shevill v Presse Alliance SA'

Back 14

Claimant doesn't have to show that anyone who read the publication actually knew him

Front 15

'Hulton v Jones' [1910]

'Newstead v London Express' [1940]

Back 15

Unintentional liability e.g. intended to write about a fictional character

Front 16

'O'Shea v MGN' [2001]

Back 16

Impact of A.10 ECHR - would be too great a burden to have to check that there wasn't resemblance to any person

Front 17

HOL 'Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper' [1944]

Back 17

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??]

Front 18

'Al Amoudi v Brisard' [2006]

Back 18

No presumption that internet material is widely read, but can use number of site views as evidence

Front 19

'Riddick v Thames Board Mill' [1977]

Back 19

Unless QP, dictating a defamatory note to a secretary is publication

Front 20

'Wennhak v Morgan' (1888)

Back 20

Archaic husband and wife exception to publication

Front 21

'Huth v Huth' [1915]

Back 21

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

Front 22

'Vizetelly v Mudie's Select Library' [1900]

Back 22

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

Front 23

'Bunt v Tilley'

Back 23

Mere online conduits (e.g. search engines) are not liable

Cf. Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations

Front 24

'Ward v Weeks' (1830)

Back 24

Re repetition

Republication by the voluntary act of another will gen. break the chain of causation

Front 25

'McManus v Beckham' [2002]

Back 25

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