Cases

Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd (CA)

Held

(1) The Judge was correct to rule that part of the article was protected by qualified privilege as a fair and accurate report of proceedings in Parliament;

(2) The judge had erred in applying the repetition rule to ascertain the meaning of the non-privileged parts of the article. To do so undermined the finding of privilege. The meaning of the article had to be determined with respect to the fact that part of the article had been found to be privileged and that required the repetition rule not to be applied to the MP's reported remarks and an exception to the single-meaning rule was required; and

(3) The non-privileged words, in context, bore only a Chase Level 2 meaning.

Also