Tugendhat J redefines meaning of defamation
Share
Mr Justice Tugendhat today raised the bar for defamation claims in a High Court ruling that found the definition of defamation must include a qualification or threshold of seriousness.
Dismissing an action brought by author Dr Sarah Thornton against the Telegraph Media Group, Tugendhat J accepted a submission from solicitor advocate David Price of David Price Solicitors, who represented the defendant, that the definition of defamation should be qualified to exclude trivial claims.
In his judgment Tugendhat J gave a new definition of what may constitute defamation, stating: “The publication of which he complains may be defamatory of him because it [substantially] affects in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards him, or has a tendency so to do”.
Thornton brought the defamation action against The Daily Telegraph after journalist Lynn Barber claimed in a review of Thornton’s book Seven Days in the Art World that the author gave her interviewees copy approval – a practice of which Barber said journalists disapproved.
Thornton was represented by 5RB’s Justin Rushbrooke, who was instructed by Taylor Hampton Solicitors.
Readers' comments (1)
Is the world barking? | 18-Jun-2010 9:57 am
What has the world come to when lawyers need a judge to qualify defamation? Have you all forgotten how to think independently?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment