Cases

Joseph & others v Spiller & another

Held

(1) By reason of their juxtaposition with the stated facts, the words complained of were capable of being comment.

(2) The comment was arguably in the public interest because the Claimants offer their services to the public.

(3) Once one excluded the false fact in the words complained of concerning what the First Claimant had said in an email, the remaining fact referred to concerned an alleged breach of contract which took place in December 2005 (14 months before the alleged breach of contract which caused the publication complained of). On an application of s.6 Defamation Act 1952, the defence of fair comment could not be permitted to subsist by reason of an alleged breach which took place a considerable period of time before the breach which had prompted the publication of the words complained of.

(4) Applying the Regulations, the fact that the contract term in issue was set out in a separate document did not cause it to be unenforceable; thus that term could be breached

Also