This is a well written and clear set of lecture notes to do with the law of tort. Separated into clear and easy to understand sub sections. Notes made by an Accelerated law student in the 2 year law programme, case laws and notes are included. Negligence and nervous shock, occupiers liability, duty...
The tort of defamation protects a person’s interest in their reputation.
Cases were previously tried in the High Court with a jury.
Defamation Act 2013 s11: Provides that defamation trials should be without a jury
unless the court orders otherwise.
Libel and Slander:
LIBEL: A statement made in a permanent form.
- Statue, sign, picture
- Chalk?
- Radio and TV
- Theatre
Monson v Tussauds (1894) 1QB 671 (CA)
Waxwork model of the claimant was placed in the same room as a number of
murderers and next to the chamber of horrors. C had recently been tried for murder
in Scotland but the case was found ‘not proven.’
- HELD: A waxwork’s dummy could be LIBEL.
Youssoupoff v MGM (1934) 50 TLR 581 (CA)
The claimant, Russian Princess, sued the defendants for making a talking film ,
‘Rasputin, the Mad Monk’ in which the scenes suggested she had been raped by
Rasputin.
- HELD: Pictures were a permanent matter to be seen by the eye – Could be LIBEL.
Radio and TV – Broadcasting Act 1990 s166 words, pictures or images on radio or TV
treated as LIBEL.
, Theatre – Theatre Act 1968 s4 statements made in a public performance of a play
treated as in a permanent form.
SLANDER: A statement made in a temporary form.
- Records, Tapes, DVDs: Could be seen as permanent, but not communicated until
played.
Libel can also be a crime, if it leads to a breach of the peace.
- For libel, must prove serious harm.
- Originally you could claim without proving harm; under the Defamation Act 2013
S1 need to prove serious harm.
Slander can only be a tort.
- Must prove special damage.
Exceptions to this rule where there is no need to prove special damage:
- Implying that the claimant has committed a crime punishable by imprisonment.
- Implying someone is unfit for any office, profession, calling trade or business. (s2
Defamation Act 1952.)
Jones v Jones [1916]
A statement that the headmaster had sex with the caretaker’s wife.
- HELD: Held no evidence it lowered his status.
Implying unchastity in a woman (abolished by s14 (1) Defamation Act 2013)
Implying someone has a contagious disease. Under s14 (2) Defamation Act 2013 now
need to prove that the person suffers special damage.
Definition of Defamation:
- The publication of an untrue statement which exposes a man to hatred, ridicule
or contempt or causes him to be shunned or avoided by right thinking members
of society.
Defamation Act 2013
- S1 (2) Must cause ‘serious harm’ to C’s reputation.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller mbk_2004. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $8.48. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
