Inforrm reported on a large number of defamation cases from around the world in 2024. Following a now established tradition, with our widely read posts on 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 defamation cases, we present our selection of legally and factually interesting cases from England, Australia, New Zealand and Canada from the past year.
1. Blake v Fox [2024] EWHC 146 (KB). The claimants had posted tweets referring to the defendant as a “racist”. He responded by called each of them a “paedophile”. There was claim and a counterclaim. Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp brought claims in libel and Mr Fox brought a counterclaim also in libel. As a preliminary issue it had been held that the defendant’s tweets were allegations of fact but the defendant’s was an expression of opinion. After a full trial Collins Rice J held that the defendant’s tweets were likely to cause serious harm to the claimants’ reputations but that the defendant had not established that the claimant’s tweet has cause his reputation serious harm. The defendant’s qualified privilege defence failed because his responses were outside the ambit of reply to attack. After a subsequent hearing the judge awarded each claimant damages of £90,000 each. The defendant has been granted permission to appeal . There was an Inforrm case comment.
2. Harcombe v Associated Newspapers [2024] EWHC 1523 (KB) The claimants were accused by the Mail on Sunday of being “statin deniers”. There was a trial of a preliminary issues on the defences of public interest, privilege and whether the author the articles, Mail on Sunday health editor, held the defamatory opinions published. The “public interest” defence was be dismissed as the defendants had failed to demonstrate that the belief that publication was in t he public interest was dismissed. The defence of reporting privilege under s.15 Defamation 1996 was also dismissed as the reports were not fair or accurate. The health editor did not hold the defamatory opinion conveyed by the articles. The defendants subsquently agreed to pay the claimants “very substantial damages”. There was an Inforrm case comment
3. Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for Home Department [2024] UKSC 21. In a Home Office report the claimant was described as a war criminal. The claim was struck out by the High Court as an abuse as the claimant has been convicted of war crimes in 2013 by a domestic tribunal in Bangladesh . A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal but he successfully appealed to the Supreme Court. It was held that the doctrine of “Hunter abuse” did not apply because the claimant did not have a full opportunity to contest his conviction in Bangladesh. The Court of Appeal were wrong to dismiss the claim as a Jameel abuse. There was a 5RB case comment.
5. Iqbal v Geo TV Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1566. The claimant, a Pakistani businessman, complained of live coverage of a political rally by the defendant in which defamatory words had been spoken by a politician. The defendant sought summary judgment on its defence of qualified privilege under s. 15 Defamation Act 1996 on the basis that the broadcasts were fair and accurate reports of proceedings at “public meeting”. The High Court that report was fair and accurate but there was an arguable defence on the issue as to whether the broadcast were of public interest and for public benefit and on the issue of malice. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the defendant and granted summary judgment. The broadcast was in furtherance of a matter of public interest and was for “public benefit”. There was no prospect of establishing malice. There was a 5RB case comment.
6. Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 369 This was the trial of an action brought by former Liberal Party staffer Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and the former host of The Project, Lisa Wilkinson, over an interview with Lehrmann’s former colleague, Brittany Higgins, in which she said she had been raped by a colleague at Parliament House after a night out with colleagues. Justice Lee found Ten and Wilkinson had made out their justification defence, stating bluntly: “Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins”. In view of the public interest in the case the Court made the Court file publicly available.
7. Deeming v Pesutto (No 3) [2024] FCA 1430 A former Opposition Whip in the Legislative Council of Victoria sued the then Victorian Liberal Leader, over statements he made when seeking to expel the claimant over her participation in an anti-transgender rally which was gate crashed by neo-Nazis. Justice O’Callaghan awarded Deeming $300,000 in damages, after he found the statements conveyed imputations that she was unfit to be a member of the parliamentary Liberal party because of her associations with neo-Nazis, and that she knowingly associated with neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Justice O’Callaghan rejected Pesutto’s defences of honest opinion, public interest and contextual truth. In view of the public interest in the case the Court made the Court file publicly available.
8. Greenwich v Latham [2024] FCA 1050 ) This was an action brought by independent NSW MP Alex Greenwich against Upper House MP Mark Latham over a homophobic tweet sent in the wake of the NSW state election in 2023. It was alleged that the tweet conveyed imputations he engaged in disgusting sexual activities and was unfit to be an MP. Justice O’Callaghan found the tweet conveyed an imputation that Greenwich engaged in disgusting sexual activities, a finding requiring little latitude as it was the literal meaning of the post, but said it did not convey an imputation that Greenwich was unfit to sit in Parliament. Greenwich was awarded $140,000 damages. In view of the public interest in the case the Court made the Court file publicly available. There was a comment on the case on The Conversation.
9. Nguyen v Dinh [2024] NZHC 2358, The plaintiff, Ms Nguyen, was defamed by the defendants in a number of social media posts and comments on personal pages and in a Vietnamese community group. The posts contained allegations that Ms Nguyen was guilty of crimes, including fraud, theft, hacking, and criminal conspiracy. Justice Gordon awarded a total of NZ$780,00 against four defendants, including NZ$30,000 in exemplary damages against one defendant. None of the defendants took any steps to actively defend the defamation proceeding.
10. Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Quebecor Media Inc., 2024 ONSC 6484. The claimant trade union sued the “Toronto Sun” over reports based on its participation in a demonstration in 2014 which featured a Hamas flag. It was said that the union’s leadership has a “history of partnering up with hate groups, anti-Israel group”. The judge dismissed the action, upholding defences of fair comment and responsible communication. There was news story about the case in the National Post..
Please add additional cases or analysis via the comments. We would like to thank readers for their contributions, reposting and reading of this series to date
0 Comments
1 Pingback