Tort 2
Defamation
“All communicators must beware of defamation” P. Carey. Media Law.
Defamation Act 1952
Defamation Act 1996
Defamation Act 2013
Defamation has been the subject of a great deal of reform for several reasons: overblown
awards from juries, Conflicts between Art. 8 and Art.10, “Enrichment” of claimants and lawyers
Defamation is concerned with protecting the reputation of a person or a body trading profit-
the statement must therefore be defamatory.
Statement must refer to claimant.
Statement must be “published” to a third party.
Note distinction between libel and slander
The humans rights angle- Freedom of expression v. Right to Reputation
Libel- defamation of a permanent character and visible. “statement” means words, pictures,
visual images, gestures or any other method of signifying meaning.
Slander- defamation in oral form
Any form of writing, pictures or effigies= libel (Monson v Tussauds Ltd [1894])
Difficulties arise with audible but permanent material and the visible but transitory.
Formerly libel was actionable per se- this is no longer the case since defamation now requires
proof of serious harm.
Whereas slander was not (with several exceptions)
But this cannot now be true of either libel or slander since defamation now requires proof of
serious harm or likelihood thereof.
Concerned with protection of a person’s standing in the eyes of the community at large rather
than with mere loss of dignity or injury to feelings.
Success in action for defamation requires the claimant to prove:
1. The words, pictures, gestures etc. Complained of are, in fact, defamatory and have
caused (or are likely to cause) ‘serious damage’ to reputation- no longer actionable per
se.
, 2. That the defamation refers to her/him (the claimant)
3. That the defamation was (maliciously) published.
Who can be defamed?
Only the living and trading corporations.
Not public bodies Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd (1993)
A class of persons (class action)- depends on size of class Aspro Travel v Owners Abroad Group
Plc [1995]
In recent times often a balance required between on Article 8 v Article 10.
What is a defamatory statement?
“A statement calculated to injure the reputation... [ or expose to] hatred, ridicule or contempt.”
Is claimant “shunned or avoided”? Youssoupoff v MGN Ltd 1934
Sim v Stretch 1936 “[defamatory] words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-
thinking people”- “hideously ugly” Berkoff v Burchill 1996
Truthful and untruthful statements can be defamatory but only the latter are actionable.
Mere Abuse?
Historically- “villain”- Bell v Stone 1798
“Gay” “Homosexual” etc
s.1(1) DA 2013: “A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to
cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant”
Pre-Da 2013: “A statement calculated to injure the reputation... [or expose to] hatred, ridicule
or contempt”
Defamatory statement must be Published
Must come to the notice of a person other than the creator of the material and the claimant
(Pullman v Walter Hill & Company 1891)
Alternatively:
Defendant intends to publish
Defendant reasonably anticipated publication
Published unintentionally but owing to a lack of care on the defendant’s part
Defamation
“All communicators must beware of defamation” P. Carey. Media Law.
Defamation Act 1952
Defamation Act 1996
Defamation Act 2013
Defamation has been the subject of a great deal of reform for several reasons: overblown
awards from juries, Conflicts between Art. 8 and Art.10, “Enrichment” of claimants and lawyers
Defamation is concerned with protecting the reputation of a person or a body trading profit-
the statement must therefore be defamatory.
Statement must refer to claimant.
Statement must be “published” to a third party.
Note distinction between libel and slander
The humans rights angle- Freedom of expression v. Right to Reputation
Libel- defamation of a permanent character and visible. “statement” means words, pictures,
visual images, gestures or any other method of signifying meaning.
Slander- defamation in oral form
Any form of writing, pictures or effigies= libel (Monson v Tussauds Ltd [1894])
Difficulties arise with audible but permanent material and the visible but transitory.
Formerly libel was actionable per se- this is no longer the case since defamation now requires
proof of serious harm.
Whereas slander was not (with several exceptions)
But this cannot now be true of either libel or slander since defamation now requires proof of
serious harm or likelihood thereof.
Concerned with protection of a person’s standing in the eyes of the community at large rather
than with mere loss of dignity or injury to feelings.
Success in action for defamation requires the claimant to prove:
1. The words, pictures, gestures etc. Complained of are, in fact, defamatory and have
caused (or are likely to cause) ‘serious damage’ to reputation- no longer actionable per
se.
, 2. That the defamation refers to her/him (the claimant)
3. That the defamation was (maliciously) published.
Who can be defamed?
Only the living and trading corporations.
Not public bodies Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd (1993)
A class of persons (class action)- depends on size of class Aspro Travel v Owners Abroad Group
Plc [1995]
In recent times often a balance required between on Article 8 v Article 10.
What is a defamatory statement?
“A statement calculated to injure the reputation... [ or expose to] hatred, ridicule or contempt.”
Is claimant “shunned or avoided”? Youssoupoff v MGN Ltd 1934
Sim v Stretch 1936 “[defamatory] words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-
thinking people”- “hideously ugly” Berkoff v Burchill 1996
Truthful and untruthful statements can be defamatory but only the latter are actionable.
Mere Abuse?
Historically- “villain”- Bell v Stone 1798
“Gay” “Homosexual” etc
s.1(1) DA 2013: “A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to
cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant”
Pre-Da 2013: “A statement calculated to injure the reputation... [or expose to] hatred, ridicule
or contempt”
Defamatory statement must be Published
Must come to the notice of a person other than the creator of the material and the claimant
(Pullman v Walter Hill & Company 1891)
Alternatively:
Defendant intends to publish
Defendant reasonably anticipated publication
Published unintentionally but owing to a lack of care on the defendant’s part
