Legal Research
Cases
Joseph v Spiller

Joseph v Spiller

Case [2010] UKSC 53 1 December 2010

Defamatory Statements

Fair Comment

Misrepresentation

Defamation Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Michaelmas Term

[2010] UKSC 53

On appeal from: 2009 EWCA Civ 1075

JUDGMENT

Spiller and another (Appellants) v Joseph and others (Respondents)

before

Lord Phillips, President

Lord Rodger
Lord Walker
Lord Brown

Sir John Dyson, SCJ

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

1 December 2010

Heard on 26 and 27 July 2010

Appellant Respondents

David Price Solicitor	William Bennett
(Advocate of David Price	(Instructed by Pattinson &
Solicitors & Advocates)	Brewer)

Interveners

Andrew Caldecott QC

Sarah Palin

(Instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP)

LORD PHILLIPS

Introduction

1. Mr David Price, the Solicitor-Advocate acting for the defendants, who are the appellants, at one point described the claim as a storm in a teacup. He was correct, but the storm is considerable. It involves consideration of one of the most difficult areas of the law of defamation, the defence of fair comment.

2. Over 40 years ago Diplock LJ in Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB 157, 171 referred to “the artificial and archaic character of the tort of libel”. Some 20 years on Parker LJ in Brent Walker Group plc v Time Out Ltd [1991] 2 QB 33, 46 commented on the absurdity of the “tangled web of the law of defamation”. Little has occurred in the last twenty years to unravel the tangle, and this is particularly true of the defence of fair comment. Statutory reform has been proposed in the form of Lord Lester of Herne Hill’s private member’s Defamation Bill and the Ministry of Justice has undertaken to publish a draft Defamation Bill early next year. Both Mr Price, and Mr Caldecott QC, who has intervened on behalf of and with the support of important newspaper and broadcasting interests, have invited the court to use this appeal as a vehicle for developing the common law defence of fair comment in a manner which goes well beyond what is necessary to resolve the issues raised by this appeal. What are currently the elements of the defence of fair comment?

3. Sitting in the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong in Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert Cheng [2001] EMLR 777 Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead was concerned with the ingredients of malice that can defeat the defence of fair comment. Before considering that question he set out at paras 16-21, under the heading “Fair Comment: The Objective Limits” what he optimistically described as five “non- controversial matters”, which were “well established” in relation to the defence of fair comment:

“16. … First, the comment must be on a matter of public interest. Public interest is not to be confined within narrow limits today: see Lord Denning in London Artists Ltd v Littler [1969] 2 QB 375, 391.
17. Second, the comment must be recognisable as comment, as distinct from an imputation of fact. If the imputation is one of fact, a ground of defence must be sought elsewhere, for example, justification or privilege. Much learning has grown up around the distinction between fact and comment. For present…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Joseph v Spiller

Details

AGLC: Joseph v Spiller [2010] UKSC 53
Case: [2010] UKSC 53
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns a dispute over a defamatory statement published on the defendant's website. The plaintiffs, members of a musical act, brought an action against the defendant, an entertainment booking service, over a post published on the latter's website. The post alleged that the plaintiffs were unprofessional and could not be trusted to honour their contractual obligations. The trial judge struck out the defence of fair comment, which the defendants sought to rely on. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

The legal issues in this case were: (1) whether the defendants could rely on matters to which they made no reference in their comment in support of their plea of fair comment, and (2) whether the matters to which the defendants did refer in their comment were capable of sustaining a defence of fair comment.

The Supreme Court held that the defence of fair comment should be renamed "honest comment" and that it should not be necessary for the comment to identify the facts upon which it was based, provided that those facts were sufficiently indicated. The Court also held that the defendants could rely on matters to which they made no reference in their comment, if those matters were sufficiently indicated in the comment and were matters of public interest.

The Court allowed the appeal, reinstated the defence of fair comment, and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.

Orders