Full case report
Hussein v Farooq & Sheik
Reference  EWHC 2487 (QB)
Court Queen's Bench Division
Judge Eady J
Date of Judgment 22 Oct 2008
Defamation – Slander – Adequacy of evidence – Proof of oral publication – Slander actionable without proof of special damage
C claimed damages for slander, alleging that during a meeting involving the two defendants (F and K) and potential customers F had said “Forget Mr Shah [the C], he cannot get you any property,” and that K had made similar disparaging allegations about C’s business practices. Both defendants denied making defamatory statements. The principal witness for C was his assistant. F did not give evidence in person.
(1) Whether C was able to prove that either or both F and K spoke the words pleaded;
(2) Whether the words were capable of being defamatory.
(3) Whether the alleged words, if published, were actionable without proof of special damage.
In light of the conflict of evidence, the judge was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that F had spoken the words attributed to him. Moreover, those words were not capable of being defamatory on their face and no innuendo meaning had been pleaded.
None of the testimony before the court about K’s alleged statements could be accepted with unqualified confidence. Given the conflict of evidence and the shifting nature of C’s case against K, K was found on the balance of probabilities not to have spoken the words attributed to him.
Further, C had failed to prove that he carried on a business of finding commercial properties, such as to satisfy the relevant statutory requirement that the words were “calculated to disparage… in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication”( s. 2 Defamation Act 1952).
This case reiterates the need for the claimant in any slander action to establish ‘with reasonable clarity’ the words said to have been spoken.
C in person; Lam & Meerabux for F; A Z for K
More from 5RB
5RB is the pre-eminent set in the area for handling defamation, privacy, contempt and data protection matters. Interviewees praise the set for having great depth and quality of counsel, and note that it boasts many of the top barristers in the field. Get the lowdown here.
New 22nd Edition of Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, published by Sweet & Maxwell. Further info here.