Overig
Tort Exam Revision notes
- Vak
- Instelling
Defamation Nuisance Duty - Breach - Causation - Remoteness - Defences Pure Psychiatric Injury Pure Economic Loss Occupier Liability Employer Liability Public Authority Liability
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 38 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 38 pagina's
In winkelwagen
In winkelwagen
gesponsord bericht van onze partner
3 beoordelingen
Door: fattybumbum10 • 6 jaar geleden
Door: embeardsmore • 7 jaar geleden
Door: essieahiaba • 7 jaar geleden
Verkoper
Volgendobrien312
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
TORT REVISION NOTES1. DEFAMATION
a) Difference between libel and slander
-Libel=permanent/semi-permanent form, doesn’t need proof of damage as
already presumed
- Examples of Libels - Monson v Tussauds (1894)- can include a waxwork
- Theatres Act 1968 s4(1)- publication of
defamatory word in production
- Broadcasting Act 1990 s166-
words/pictures/gestures/other
- Smith v ADVFN (2010)COA- internet posts can be
libel
-Slander= spoken word which genereally requires special damage
-Examples where Slander does not need special damage proof
-Imputing a criminal offence punishable by prison.
Mcmanus v Beckham (2002) loudly accusing store of selling fakes
- Imputation of unfitness/incompetence. Jones v
Jones (1916) allegations as adulterer did not affect ability as teacher
- “words calculated to disparage plaintiff in any
office,”- S2 Defamation Act 1952
-S1 Defamation Act 2013- (1)-special damage proof required
(2)- if commercial setting, only can be
proved by financial loss
Malicious falsehood: different from defamation in that it requires the C to show a
false statement made with malice and special damage.
b) 4 elements of claims
MUST HAVE ALL 4 TO SATISFY
I) DEFAMATORY STATEMENT
S15 Defamation Act 2013- defines what is a statement
-Sims v Stretch (1936)Lord Atkin- would words lower the plaintiff in
estimation of right thinking member of society
-John v MGN (1997)- eating disorder case-right thinking member is morally
upstanding but not necessarily rational
-Lewis v Daily Telegraph ( 1964)-statements must be given their “natural
and ordinary” meaning. Includes False Innuendos=implication from words
themselves
-Armstrong v Times Newspaper(2006)- Lance is drug cheat...include True
Innuendos= defamatory meaning only gleamed with additional
, factsCourts MUST establish a single meaning and whether on its context
it is true.
-Tollley v Fry (1931)- golfer and frys chocolate- true innuendo of gaining
money from them when he wasn’t
-Baturina v Times Newspaper Ltd (2011)-Neuberger affirms that
innuendo can be basis for defamatory statement and that existence of
Reynolds defence means its compatible with HRA
-Charleston v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] not founded on a
headline or photograph in isolation from the related text. The question of
whether an article was defamatory had to be answered by reference to
the response of the ordinary, reasonable reader to the entire publication
-Cruise v Express Newspapers (1999) TC and Nicole Kidman with wedding
sham. This is defamatory
- Ibrahim v Swansea University (2012)wrongful letter saying he suffered
mental health difficulties is not defamatory. Shows changing social
attitudes towards what is defamatory
II) REFERS TO CLAIMANT
-Hough v London Express (1940)-Boxer and “wife”- need not be by name
but by reference
-Hulton & Co v. Jones(1910)- fact that there was no intention not a defence
-Knuppfer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd (1944) -whether the words
are such as would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to
believe that he was the person referred to.
-Islam expo v The spectator (2010)- unclear position as in this case the
hyperlink material did not determine outcome but suggests it may if
hyperlink not ambiguous
III) LIKELY TO CAUSE SERIOUS HARM
IV) IS IT PUBLISHED
-Sims v Stretch (1936)- one person enough
-Huth v Huth (1915)- test is foreseeability of remoteness of publication.
Isnt published if butler opens when told not to
-Dow Jones v Jamal (2005)- published to 5 people not allowed. As people
not independant of claimant
-Haji-Ioannou v Dixon (2009)- depends on context-who did you give it to?
1 person enough if that a journalist who will spread it
-Campbell v Dafra (2006)- Can be liable for 3rd party repetition if it is
natural consequence of you passing message on
Defamation Act S.8– “single publication rule” – changes longstanding rule
in Duke of Brunswick v Hamer that each new publication is a fresh cause
of action. States that the cause of action is from the first publication only,
provided they are ‘substantially the same’
Defamation Act. S.10 – Actions against secondary publishers. Courts don’t
have jurisprudence to hear a claim against someone who wasn’t the
author.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper dobrien312. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,73. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 73243 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen