Defamation and Privacy
ge 1: Defamation and Privacy
Introduction to the key concepts of Defamation and Privacy.
Page 2: Defamation - Two Forms
Definition of Defamation: The publication of a statement that lowers a person in the estimation of society or causes others to shun avoid that individual. (Winfield)
Libel:
Permanent form of defamation.
Can include diverse forms: statues, caricatures, images, chalk marks, signs, pictures.
Case Reference: _Monson v Tussauds Ltd. (1894)
Slander:
Temporary or transitory forms, typically spoken.
Includes mimicry and gestures.
Page 3: Practical Differences
Libel:
Actionable per se; the claimant does not need to prove harm.
Slander:
Requires proof of 'special damage'; must show actual harm from the statement.
Examples: financial harm from being shunned.
Special damages must not be too remote according to Lynch v Knight (1861).
Reference: Reynolds v Times Newspaper (2001).
Page 4: Libel
Definition of Libel's permanence.
Gulf Oil (GB) Ltd v Page (1987): Discovery that skywriting qualifies as libel; persistence and visibility affect classification.
Monsoon v Tussauds Ltd (1934): Libel does not necessarily require words.
Page 5: Slander
Nature of slander: Non-permanent forms such as spoken words or gestures.
Case references for slander include Speight v Gosnay (1891) and Lynch v Knight (1861).
Page 6: Slander Exceptions
Certain allegations do not require proof of damage:
Allegations of criminal conduct (Webb v Beavan, 1883).
Claims of contagious diseases (Bloodworth v Gray, 1844).
Other areas: incompetence in business, lack of chastity (now repealed by s14 Defamation Act 2013).
Page 7: Who Can Sue?
Living individuals can initiate defamation claims; claims do not survive death (s.1(1) Law Reform (Misc. Provisions) Act 1934).
Companies can also sue for defamation (South Hetton Coal Co v North-Eastern News Association Ltd. (1894)).
Controversies exist regarding the rights of corporations and political parties in defamation claims (Steel v McDonald's Corp. (1999), Derbyshire CC v Times Newspaper Ltd. (1993)).
Page 8: Establishing a Claim in Defamation
Requirements for a defamation claim:
Is the statement defamatory?
Does it refer to the claimant?
Has it been published?
Are there any defenses present?
Page 9: A Defamatory Statement
A statement is defamatory if it likely lowers the social estimation of the claimant.
Reference: Sim v Stretch (1936).
The claimant can be defamed even if the statement was made without ill intent.
Page 10: Defamatory Statement Historical Context
Libel traditionally actionable per se; a restrictive approach has emerged focusing on seriousness requirements (Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc 2005).
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 states a statement is not defamatory unless it causes serious harm to reputation.
Case references include Lachaux v Independent Print (2019), Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd (2019), Riley v Murray (2022).
Page 11: Further Notes on Defamatory Statements
Reporting criminal activity is not defamation (Byrne v Deane, 1937).
Evolution of what is considered defamatory over time (Quilty v Windsor, 1999).
Page 12: Contextualizing Defamatory Statements
Courts assess statements in context (Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd. (1995)) and intentions are irrelevant to defamation determination.
Mere abuse typically is not deemed defamatory (Berkoff v Burchill, 1996). Innuendo cases judged by whether the statement could be seen as defamatory.
Page 13: Does the Statement Refer to the Claimant?
The statement must be reasonably understood to refer to the claimant (Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd. (1971)) and must consider unintentional references (Hulton & Co v Jones (1910)).
Liability can arise from statements meant for groups (Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd. (1994)) but not if only a group reference.
Page 14: Publication Requirement
The statement must be communicated to at least one third party to qualify as defamatory.
Private communications do not count as publication (Wennhak v Morgan, 1888).
Accidental publication can incur liability if foreseeable (Theaker v Richardson, 1962).
Page 15: Re-publication
Each time a defamatory statement is republished, it creates a new cause of action (Duke of Brunswick v Hamer, 1849).
Exceptions exist where repetition is a natural consequence of the original statement (Slipper v BBC, 1991).
Page 16: Republication Legislation
Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 introduces a 12-month limitation period following the first publication.
Page 17: Distributors of Defamation
Publishers and editors are strictly liable; mechanical distributors have a defense of innocent publication if they did not know the material was defamatory (Vizetelly v Mudie's Select Library, 1900).
Page 18: Defenses - Defamation Act 2013
S2 - Truth (replacing justification)
S3 - Honest opinion (replacing fair comment)
S4 - Publication on matter of public interest (new defense)
S5 - Operators of websites when user identity is not clear
S6 - Peer-reviewed statements in scientific/academic journals
Page 19: More Defenses - Defamation Act 2013
S7 - Reports protected by privilege, addressing absolute and qualified privilege.
Page 20: Case Study - Monroe v Hopkins (2017)
Court held that the meaning of tweets regarding the claimant must be understood in context.
Page 21: Defamation Act 2013 Overview
Links to the Act. Highlights changes: need for serious financial loss for for-profit entities, introduction of privileged statements in journals, no jury trials, focus on internet regulations, and abolition of the Reynolds defense.
Page 22: Remedies for Defamation
Available remedies include damages, injunctions, and formal apologies.
Page 23: Recent Case Law
Overview of recent defamation cases such as Depp v News Group Newspapers (2020), Vardy v Rooney (2020).
Page 24: Other Relevant Case Law
Additional cases to consider: Conomou v De Freitas (2018), Banks v Cadwalladr (2022).
Page 25: Privacy and its Introduction
Notable issues in Privacy Law and the concept of privacy in society.
Page 26: Invasion of Privacy Context
UK does not have a specific invasion of privacy tort; various torts and statutory mechanisms provide limited protection.
Page 27: Evolution of Privacy Law
No specific right to privacy recognized by the HoL, but the power exists for Parliament to create such a tort.
Page 28: Early Privacy Protection Cases
Tolley v JS Fry and Sons (1931): Early use of defamation law for privacy concerns.
Page 29: Privacy Developments Recognition
Kaye v Robertson (1991): Recognition of a need for distinct privacy protections, deferred to legislature for formal creation.
Page 30: Self-Regulation in Privacy Interest
Press self-regulation and formation of the IPSO and IMPRESS highlighted.
Page 31: Breach of Confidence Defined
Originates in equity; protects secrets or confidential info with a set of established elements required for a valid claim (Coco v AN Clark (1968))
Page 32: Application in Privacy Cases
Limited applicability of breach of confidence to personal privacy claims; emphasized need for a pre-existing relationship, though exceptions exist (AG v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (1990))
Page 33: Current Privacy Law Clarification
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers (2004): Introduction of tests for breaches of confidence and privacy.
Page 34: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Courts assess whether individuals have a reasonable expectation for privacy, balancing between individual expectation and freedom of expression.
Page 35: Balancing Acts in Law
Relationship emphasized between privacy rights and freedom of expression under the ECHR and Human Rights Act.
Page 36: Comprehensive Privacy Scope
Privacy encompasses various rights and interests ranging from personal to medical to personal autonomy matters.
Page 37: Case Law and European Privacy Rights
Von Hannover v Germany (2004): Clarification on the balance between public interest and privacy rights.
Page 38: Clarifying Privacy Expectations
Murray v Express Newspapers (2008): Test for reasonable expectations of privacy clarified, particularly considering the status of the claimant.
Page 39: Constraints on Breach of Confidence
Analysis showing limitations of breach of confidence claims with observations for using alternative claims where breaches may not suffice.
Page 40: Remedies Overview
Overview of possible remedies including injunctions and damages.