The UK Supreme Court has heard argument over two days in the case of George v Cannell and another. The question the Court has to decide is – What does a claimant need to demonstrate to rely on s3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 in a claim for malicious falsehood?
The Facts
The respondent sued the appellants for libel, slander and malicious falsehood. The respondent had worked as a recruitment consultant for an agency, the second appellant, owned and operated by the first appellant. After the respondent moved to a different agency, the first appellant spoke to one of the respondent’s clients and sent an email to her new employer alleging that she was acting in breach of restrictions in her contact with the second appellant which prevented her from contacting their clients. This appeal to the Court concerns the claim for malicious falsehood.
The claim for malicious falsehood was dismissed at trial on the basis the respondent had not proved special damage as required by the common law or demonstrated that her case fell within an exception to that requirement contained in s3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952.
The Court of Appeal overturned that finding.
Our Intervention
Media Defence was granted permission to intervene in the case and filed written comments submitting that the Court of Appeal’s narrowly focused test for s.3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 makes malicious falsehood a more attractive cause of action in cases where there has been little or no loss or other harm. Our concern is that this interpretation will result in an unacceptable chilling effect on the exercise by the press of its right to free expression.
Our intervention can be found here.
For more information contact our Legal Director Pádraig Hughes at padraig.hughes@mediadefence.org
Recent News
Protecting Democracy Without Silencing Dissent: Media Defence submits written observations to the IACHR
On June 23, Media Defence submitted its written observations to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in response to the request for an advisory opinion presented by the Republic of Guatemala on “Democracy and its Protection under the Inter-American System of Human Rights.” Media Defence addressed the essential role of freedom of expression in the […]
“Good information saves lives”: Lawyer & Journalist Nadine Kampire on Combatting Disinformation in the DRC
In the latest instalment of our Press Freedom Advocates Series – which highlights the stories of lawyers defending journalists worldwide – we speak to Nadine Kampire, a Congolese journalist and lawyer. Alongside her colleagues, Nadine co-founded Afia Amani Grands-Lacs, a media network focused on fact-checking and tackling disinformation and misinformation across the Great Lakes region. […]
‘The Real Danger is if we Let Fear Win’: Hungary’s Pride Ban and the Shrinking Space for Dissent
Update: This article was written prior to the Pride march on 28 June. The event marked a historic moment, becoming the largest Budapest Pride march to date, with over 200,000 people in attendance. We’ll be following up with Hegyi soon to reflect on the aftermath and explore whether the legal strategies discussed may evolve in […]