Inforrm reported on a large number of defamation cases from around the world in 2023. Following a now established tradition, with my widely read posts on 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 defamation cases, I present my personal selection of the most legally and factually interesting cases from England, Australia, Canada and New Zealand from the past year – with three “bonus” cases from the US.
- Hay v Cresswell [2023] EWHC 882 (KB).Tattoo artist William Hay took libel action against Nina Cresswell, a woman who published a blog and social media posts stating that he had violently sexually assaulted her 10 years earlier. Mr Hay alleged that the posts had caused him serious distress and damage to his reputation. The court held that the meaning of the posts was defamatory at common law. However, Ms Cresswell successfully defended the claim on the grounds of truth and public interest. The judge held that it was substantially true that Mr Hay had attacked Ms Cresswell. The court also considered that the public interest aspect of Ms Cresswell’s defence was made out since she had published the posts in light of the “Tattoo MeToo” campaign, which saw several cases reported of male tattoo artists sexually assaulting women, and she was driven to protect other women from Mr Hay’s behaviour. The case is the first time a victim of sexual assault has relied on the public interest defence to justify naming the person responsible. There was an Inforrm case comment.
- Dyson v MGN Ltd [2023] EWHC 3092 (KB). Inventor and entrepreneur James Dyson sued the Mirror newspaper for an opinion piece declaring Dyson a “hypocrite” for campaigning for Brexit and then moving his own headquarters to Singapore, which made him a bad role model for children. Upholding the paper’s defence of honest opinion, the judge ruled that the basis of that opinion (that the Dyson headquarters had moved to Singapore) was true and did not accept that it was merely the relocation of two senior executives. The judge held that a publisher is permitted to be selective in the facts relied upon as the basis for an opinion. Press Gazette
- Banks v Cadwalladr [2023] EWCA Civ 219. Businessman and Brexit campaigner Arron Banks successfully appealed the dismissal of his libel claims against journalist Carole Cadwalladr, who had stated in a TED Talk and a tweet that Mr Banks had broken electoral law by taking money from the Russian government to fund his Brexit campaign. An official investigation reported a year after the TED Talk that there was no evidence of wrongdoing. The judge in the first instance concluded that the initial publication of the talk was protected by the public interest defence, while the ongoing publication of the tweet and the talk following the investigation result were not, though these claims still failed as Mr Banks did not suffer serious harm under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The Court of Appeal court overturned the first-instance judge and held that he had been caused serious harm by the 100,000 views of the TED Talk in the first year of publication, which was relevant where the public interest defence no longer applied. Ms Cadwalladr was ordered to pay £35,000 in damages and held to be liable for very substantial costs. There was a post about the case on Inforrm.
- Packham v Wightman [2023] EWHC 1256 (KB). he TV presenter and naturalist Chris Packham sued the Editor of Country Squire Magazine over three allegations published on its website which alleged, among other things, that he had misled people in order to raise money for a tiger rescue charity. The High Court found that the accusations were not substantially true and amounted to a “hyperbolic and vitriolic smearing of Mr Packham” [163]. The Defendants were ordered to pay Packham £90,000 in damages. The BBC, the Guardian, The Telegraph, Zelo Street reported on the judgement. Doughty Street Chambers also covered the case in their blog.
- Duke of Sussex v Associated Newspapers [2023] EWHC 3120 (KB). The claimant’s application to strike out and/or obtain summary judgment on the defence of honest opinion relied on by ANL was denied. The case will proceed to trial. The BBC, Independent, Spectator and iNews were some of the many outlets to cover the judgment.
- Dyson v Channel 4 [2023] EWCA Civ 884. The Court of Appeal upheld an appeal by Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited against the decision of Nicklin J on 31 October 2022 ([2022] EWHC 2718 (KB)) that based solely on intrinsic evidence, they were not referred to in the Channel 4 broadcast that was the subject of their libel claim. It was held that the test for “ordinary” reference was whether hypothetical reasonable viewer, acquainted with the claimants would identify them as being referred to in the publication. There was an Inforrm case comment.
- Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41)[2023] FCA 555 After a year long trial, in a judgment of 607 pages and 2618 paragraphs Anthony Besanko J dismissed this libel action, the defendants’ truth defence succeeding. He held that on the balance of probabilities, Roberts-Smith kicked a handcuffed prisoner off a cliff in Darwan in 2012 before ordering a subordinate Australian soldier to shoot the injured man dead and that in 2009, Roberts-Smith ordered the killing of an elderly man found hiding in a tunnel in a bombed-out compound codenamed “Whiskey 108”, as well as murdering a disabled man with a prosthetic leg during the same mission, using a para machine gun. There was a report in the (and many other places)
- Hansman v. Neufeld 2023 SCC 14, The Supreme Court of Canada restored the decision of the first instance judge in dismissing a defamation suit brought in 2018 by a then Chilliwack school board trustee against a former teachers’ union leader, who described comments made by the trustee as bigoted, transphobic and hateful. Case in Brief, Comment on CBC
- Clancy v. Farid, 2023 ONSC 2750. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice assessed defamation damages aggregating $4,773,000 in a case involving claims by 53 plaintiffs against one individual defendant over a targeted campaign involving tens of thousands of postings on the internet. Each of the 53 plaintiffs was awarded general damages, in amounts ranging from a high of $90,000 to a low of $55,000 depending on their individual circumstances. The aggregate sum awarded for general damages amounted to $4,245,000. Aggravated damages in the amount of $1,500 were awarded to each of 34 of the plaintiffs, aggregating $51,000. Punitive damages in the amount of $9,000 were awarded to each of the 53 plaintiffs, aggregating $477,000. The Court held that the defamatory publications at issue were salacious, outrageous and malevolent. In addition to the damage award, the Court enjoined the defendant from posting further defamatory statements or comments of the nature and kind which were the subject of this litigation.
- Syed v Malik [2023] NZHC 1676. Libel claim arising out of social media posts which attack virtually every aspect of the claimant’s life. There were 20 defamatory publications including 5 videos which caused very serious harm to the claimant’s business and reputation. The Judge awarded damages of NZ$225,000. There was a report of the case on Stuff
And three “bonus” cases from the US:
- US Dominion, Inc. v. Fox News Network, LLC, a democratically notable defamation case concerning Fox News statements that vote systems sold by Dominion switched votes from former President Donald Trump to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 Presidential election. The case ultimately settled for $787.5 million, the claim itself being valued at $1.6 billion.
- E Jean Carroll v Donald J Trump, twin cases against the former US president one of which came to trial in 2023. It was found that Trump was liable for defaming and sexually abusing Carroll who was awarded damages in the sum of $5 million. The second case is scheduled for trial on 15 January 2024.
- Freeman v Guliani, a case where two ex-Georgia election workers entered a defamation suit against Rudy Guliani. The case concerned allegations of election fraud made by Guliani against the two workers whilst he was Trump’s attorney. The pair were awarded a total of $148,169,000.
Please add additional cases or analysis via the comments. I would like to thank readers for their contributions, reposting and reading of this series to date.
Suneet Sharma is a junior legal professional with a particular interest and experience in media, information and privacy law. He is the editor of The Privacy Perspective blog.