Cases

English & Another v Hastie & Another

Held

(1) The Al-Fagih decision did not recognise a free-standing defence of "neutral reportage", particularly where (as in this case) to recognise such a defence would be to grant a privilege wider than that which Parliament had decided should be given reports of documents such a writs under s.15 Defamation Act 1996.

(2) After considering the jury's findings of fact and the factors identified by Lord Nicholls in Reynolds, the judge was satisfied that the publication of the article was not protected by qualified privilege. The allegations were serious and although they constituted matters of some public concern, it had been incumbent on the Defendants to proceed with caution. The allegations came from someone with an axe to grind and represented only one side of the story. The Defendants had published with no real attempt to verify the allegations or to seek the Claimants' comments.

Also