Held: The House of Lords declined to overrule Brunswick (i.e. the principle that every time someone reads a news article a separate tort is committed), holding that the distribution of a Russian newspaper in England gave rise to a cause of action in English law, despite the fact the newspaper had been much more widely circulated in Russia. The claimants, despite being Russian, had reputations within the jurisdiction to protect

Facts: Burchill (a journalist) had twice made throw-away remarks about Berkoff (an actor and director). The first said that “film directors, from Hitchcock to Berkoff, are notoriously hideous-looking people” and later said the creature in Frankstein is “a lot like Stephen Berkoff, only marginally better looking”.

Held: The court of appeal held that to describe someone as ‘hideous looking’ was capable of being defamatory, despite it appearing to be mere vulgar abuse only. Neill J: “the charge that he is ‘hideously ugly’ exposes him to ridicule, and/or alternatively, will cause him to be shunned or avoided”

⇒ Millet LJ dissented: “Many a true word is spoken in jest. Many a false one too. But chaff and banter are not defamatory, and even serious imputations are not actionable if no one would take them to be meant seriously”

Held: A bookseller (Woolworths) was not liable for defamatory statements made in magazines sold by them, as they had no reason to believe that they contained libellous statements. However, if a book seller does know a magazine or book does contain libellous statements then they are potentially liable

Facts: The defendants were brewers who owned many pubs. They allowed customers to cash cheques at the pub and would cash the cheque at the plaintiff's (claimant's) bank. However a new manager of the plaintiff's banks stopped cashing the cheques. As a result, the defendants (brewers) sent a letter to their customers saying the bank would no longer accept the cheques. Subsequently there was a run on the bank, and the bank claimed they had been defamed. But the defendants said the meaning of the letter was that the bank was in financial trouble

Held: Lord Selbourne said the test in deciding what the actual meaning of the words is: “whether under the circumstances in which the writing was published, reasonable men, to whom the publication was made, would be likely to understand it in a libellous sense”

Held: A photograph, which was captioned as being of a man and his fiancée, was libellous to the man’s existing wife, as it implied she was not legally married to the man she was living withs

Facts: The House of Lords considered a mock exposé on the front of the News of the World in which the claimants – 2 characters from the soap 'Neighbours' – were pictured naked and apparently engaged in sexual intercourse or sodomy. However, the written article next to it made clear the images were computer generated and not actually real

Held: Lord Bridge accepted the publication must have been ‘deeply offensive and insulting’ to the claimants, but held it was not defamatory. The publication had to be read as a whole, and the headline and pictures in isolation could not give rise to liability.

⇒ However, even if the article goes on to deny the defamatory statement originally made it is likely to still be defamatory e.g. Simon Brown LJ: “I find it very difficult to conceive of circumstances in which the mere printing of a denial could of itself be said to constitute an antidote sufficient to neutralise the bane”

Facts: The theme tune of a popular drama set in a prison camp was used as background music to a feature about holiday camps

Held: It was held that the implied meaning of this was that the holiday camp was like a prison camp

Facts: The plaintiff (claimant) commenced libel proceedings against Private Eye but also wanted to go after book sellers (distributing Private Eye) for libel actions

Held: Denning said it was fine for Goldsmith to go after book sellers for libel actions i.e. At Common Law, anyone involved in the production or distribution of a libel could, in theory, be held to be liable

Facts: A humorous essay in the Sunday Chronicle suggested that a person called Artemus Jones had a habit of having affairs. A barrister, also called Artemus Jones, brought an action for defamation. He argued the article was capable of being defamatory, in that reasonable people could have understood the article as referring to him, rather than the imaginary character.

Held: He won, despite the article specifically saying Artemus was a church warden: so obody who read the article would really have believed it was about the barrister.

⇒ So even though the defendant did not intend to defame the claimant there may still be defamation. But if the defamation is unintentional damages are likely to be nominal (i.e. very little) (as in the case of Newstead v London Express, below)

⇒ The outcome of the case seems unfair, but Mitchell points out that one thing which may have swayed the jury to this outcome is that the writer of the essay had come across the Plaintiff (claimant) before, which substantially undermined his claim that the use of the name was coincidental

Facts: London Express accused an international socialist group of treason (which was highly defamatory during the war). Members of the groups sued

Held: The House of Lords rejected their claim as class of people cannot sue unless “the words would reasonably be understood as published of each member of the firm or each trustee or tenant” (Lord Atkins)

Facts: Hippies were handing out leaflets saying people shouldn't eat McDonalds food.

Held: McDonalds won £60,000 in damages for defamation. However, today, McDonalds would have to show the court that the handing out of leaflets caused them or is likely to cause the company “serious financial loss”. This is very difficult to prove

Facts: The defendant (Victoria Beckham) saw autographed photos of her husband for sale. She thought they were forged so warned other customers not to buy them. Her words were reported in the press. As a result the business went insolvent.

Held: The defendant was held to be liable for her statement and the repeated words in the press. In other words, she was liable for any foreseeable consequences, including the repetition. The newspaper was also liable for defamation as it is no defence to say you were merely repeating someone else (a narrow exception is 'neutral reportage')

Facts: The waxwork of the claimant, who had been tried for murder but not been found guilty, had been placed close to the ‘Chamber of Horrors’ where other famous murderers were displayed. Monson sued and claimed defamation as it would imply he was also a murderer even though he was found not guilty

Held: He won the case and given a farthing in damages

Facts: Harold Newstead, aged 24 (but looking older), of Camberwell, sued the newspaper over a report (which was entirely truthful and accurate) that Harold Newstead (someone different), 30, of Camberwell, had been found guilty of bigamy.

Held: Newstead, 24, sued the newspaper and won his claim as reasonable thinking people may think the article was about him. However, he only got a farthing in damage.

Facts: In the case, O’Shea was a young woman who was horrified when her friends and relatives were asking her why she was appearing in adverts for phone sex (even though it wasn't her)

Held: Morland J accepted that a jury might reasonably have concluded that the claimant was the person referred to in the publication, but said it would be contrary to Article 10 ECHR to impose strict liability for inadvertent defamatory reference to a claimant as a result of identification from a photo of someone else of similar appearance

Facts: The claimant sued, claiming a photo taken of him and the accompanying caption would make people think he had smelly feet and that would cause right thinking people to think the worst of him

Held: He won the case. Note, however, he would unlikely win this case today

Facts: A clerk opened a letter sent to business partners, in the course of the business

Held: It was held that the libel had been published: it was foreseeable someone else would read the letter so it has, therefore, been published

Facts: The defendant published an article stating that the Fraud Squad of the City of London were investigating the affairs of the the claimant's company. As this was true, no action lay. The claimants also alleged that the words were defamatory in a second way: that is, they carried with them the imputation that there was at least a basis for suspicion about the way in which the business was conducted. The thrust of this plea was that the imputation of reasonable suspicion was capable of diminishing their trading reputation

Held: On the facts, their Lordships held that the words were not defamatory in the second sense since there was a distinction between, on the one hand, imputing reasonable grounds for suspicion and, on the other (as here), simply reporting the fact of suspicion

Facts: This was a reference to the European Court of Justice by the House of Lords through the preliminary ruling jurisdiction. The claimant, who lived in Yorkshire, had been working in a bureau de change in Paris. She was named in an article in a French magazine about drug trafficking, and brought proceedings for defamation before an English court. The question was, under EU law should the case be heard in English or French court?

Held: It was said “The injury caused by a defamatory publication… occurs in the places where the publication is distributed, when the victim is known in those places” [29]. So that means if the claimant is known and has their reputation in England and the material is distributed in England they can bring their claim before the English court. So the EU law allows libel tourism although the limitation is that the victim may get less damages as they may be less well known in the jurisdiction

Facts: The defendant put a defamatory letter, addressed to Mrs Theaker, through her letterbox. The letter was opened by Mr Theaker (thus published to a third party).

Held: It wa held that it was a ‘natural and probable consequence’ of the defendant's actions that the letter should be seen by the husband, so the defendant was liable for the publication

Facts: Tolley is an amateur golfer and was suing because he was used in an advertisement without his consent. Amateur golfers shouldn’t be in advertisement and should not get money from the game in any direct or indirect way (this was a strict code). He argued that any right thinking person would think he was paid for the advertisement. If people had thought that - and they knew about the existence of the strict code (i.e. extrinsic facts) - then they would think he has violated his status as an amateur and for the company to use him in the advertisement is defamatory

Held: This was capable of being defamatory

Facts: A film falsely showed that the claimant, Youssoupoff, had been seduced by Rasputin

Held: This was held to be libellous<