Defamation Cases & Statutes

?
  • Created by: debbie.t
  • Created on: 26-04-16 14:59
MONSON v TUSSAUDS LTD (1894) - Libel
Waxwork placed outside of the chamber of horrors (not proven
1 of 29
ALLSOP v ALLSOP (1865) - Slander
Illness caused by slanderous comment was considered too remote
2 of 29
HELLWIG v MITCHELL (1918) - Slander Actionable per so
Imputing a criminal offence 'I know enough to put in jail'
3 of 29
CASSELL v BROOME (1972) - Lord Reid
There are no clear rules on how to identify a defamatory statement. But it generally lowers the opinion of an individual
4 of 29
BYRNE v DEANE (1937) - Right-thinking member of the society
Being an informant isn't bad, and therefore the statement wasn't defamatory
5 of 29
BERKOFF v BURCHILL (1996) - Ridicule
Held that it lowers the etimation and respect for the individual in that particular profession. Lord Millet dissented saying 'a cheap joke at his expense' - differing opinions of what is defamatory
6 of 29
YOUSSOUPOFF v MGM PICTURES LTD (1934) - Avoidance and Shun
Rare test - arbitrary position given at birth, ascriptive characteristics, however her chances of being respectably suited was lowered
7 of 29
TOLLEY v FRY & SONS LTD (1931) - Innuendo
Amateur endorsing a chocolate bar was defamatory. Emphasises how important the perception of the viewer is.
8 of 29
S1 of the Defamation Act 2013
Serious harm (or strong likelihood) caused to the reputation of the claimant
9 of 29
S1(2) of the Defamation Act 2013
Serious harm ( or a strong likelihood) caused to a body of trade in the form of financial loss
10 of 29
MORGAN v ODHAMS PRESS (1971)
Statement must refer to the claimant, not necessarily a name but an ample description would suffice
11 of 29
E HULTON & CO v JONES (1910) - Intention is not a defence
Accidental defamation still applies, Artemus Jones, from peckham, churchwarden seen with someone not his wife, real Artemus Jones was a barrister and unmarried
12 of 29
NEWSTEAD v LONDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD (1940)
'if there is a risk of coincidence, it is the fault of the person who put it in circulation' - Publish and be damned
13 of 29
S2 of the Defamation Act 1996
Offer of amends
14 of 29
WENNHAK v MORGAN (1888)
'Disastrous to social life' if spouses were included in the rule that 'publishing' occurs when told to another person besides the claimant
15 of 29
S2 of the Defamation Act 2013 - Truth defence
The statement can be 'substantially' true if the inaccurate fact doesn't seriously harm the reputation of the claimant
16 of 29
ALEXANDER V EASTERN RAILWAY CO (1865) - Truth fefence
The only incorrect fact was the length of time the claimant had been sentenced, the defence was sound
17 of 29
S4 of the Defamation Act 2013 - Public Interest defence
If the public fairly ought to know something which concerns them, it should be matter of public intrest
18 of 29
LONDON ARTIST LTD v LITTLER (1969) - Public Interest defence
Lord Denning - 'affected population on a large scale, it would be fair to get their opinion it' e.g. Cecil Parkinson.
19 of 29
S3 of the Defamation Act 2013 - Honest Opinion defence
Statement is made merely as an opinion, Statement indicates the basis for this opinion, Reasonable person could honestly have this opinion
20 of 29
TELNIKOFF v MATUSEVITCH (1992) Honest opinion defence (1)
Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort - Difficult to distinguish being fact and opinion, calling someone a fornicator or swindler, is that an opinion about their immorality or their dishonesty or a fact? TvM the letter was read without the article
21 of 29
REYNOLDS v TIMES NEWSPAPER LTD (2001) - Honest opinion defence (3)
The defence wasn't available to the defendant because of the defamatory nature of the article, it wasn't deemed to be an actual OPINION held by the defendant
22 of 29
MOORE v NEWS OF THE WORLD (1972) - Consent defence
Defendant failed to use this defence although it was available to them orignally
23 of 29
S7 of the Defamation Act 1996 - Innocence defence
As long as they are not the author, editor or publisher in commericial cases, took all reasonable care (negligence in the VIZTELLY v MUNDIE SELECT LIBRARY LTD (1900), and had not reason to believe there was defamatory material
24 of 29
GODFREY v DEMON INTERNET LTD (1999) - Innocence defence
Defendant was aware of the defamatory statement but failed to take action to remove it
25 of 29
Bill of Rights 1688 (Article 9) - Absolute privilege defence
Parliamentary privilege given to parliament to discuss defamatory statements within the Houses but not outside. S13 of the 1996 Act allows therm to waive this privilege in order to reference to a defamatory statement mentioned inside the House
26 of 29
S14 of the Defamation Act 2013 - Absolute privilege defence
Extends the privilege to Judicial proceedings, and UK courts, as well as international courts established by the Law or Security council of that country
27 of 29
WATT v LONGSDON (1930) - Qualified privilege defence
'reciprocity is essential' the communication must be readily received if it is truly in the interest of both parties
28 of 29
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
Protects employee's from disciplinary action and being ostracised when they inform about their employers
29 of 29

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Illness caused by slanderous comment was considered too remote

Back

ALLSOP v ALLSOP (1865) - Slander

Card 3

Front

Imputing a criminal offence 'I know enough to put in jail'

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

There are no clear rules on how to identify a defamatory statement. But it generally lowers the opinion of an individual

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Being an informant isn't bad, and therefore the statement wasn't defamatory

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Defamation resources »