Tort - Seminar 20 - Defamation by Claire Turner

claire43 — 2021-03-23 08:42:01 UTC

Amy, the wife of a famous Nottingley United footballer, recently met Bernadette at a celebrity party. Amy did not realise that Bernadette was a journalist from The Daily Truth newspaper.

After a few drinks, Amy told Bernadette that Howard, the goalkeeper of Nottingley United, was so bad at his job that sometimes she wondered whether he was conceding goals on purpose; that the defenders at the club were now so big that they looked like they were all on steroids; and that the club’s manager, Igor, was hitting the bottle.

The Daily Truth published Bernadette’s story under the headline:

“Exclusive: Bribes, Booze and Drugs: The Scandal at Nottingley United”.

In the article, Bernadette stated that sources very close to the club had confirmed that Howard, the goalkeeper had been accepting bribes for years; that all of the club’s defenders including the club captain, Jason, took illegal drugs; and that Igor, the club’s manager, was a chronic alcoholic.

Before publishing the story, Bernadette telephoned the club for a comment but was told that the manager and players were unavailable, as they were in a training camp overseas.

Carl, an online sports blogger, read the article in the newspaper and immediately posted an item on Twitter which read:

“No surprise: Howard was paid, Igor was smashed and the back four were pumped up. Nice muscles, Jason.”

In fact Howard has never taken a bribe; the club’s defenders including Jason have been on a new fitness regime to increase muscle strength; and Igor is does not drink alcohol.

Advise each of Amy, The Daily Truth and Carl of their potential liabilities in the tort of defamation. What defences, if any, are available to Amy, The Daily Truth and Carl?

Link to Prezi

claire43 — 2023-03-07 11:56:02 UTC

Claim 1 - Howard against Amy

claire43 — 2026-03-17 15:09:01 UTC

Slander - allegation of conceding - professional unfitness (McManus) Fraud of conceding goals alleged also would relieve Howard of proving suffered special damage (Gray v Jones)

Special damage - DA 2013

Elements defamation -

1) Is defamatory - DA 2013. Sim v Stretch.

2) Refers to him

3) Published

Any defences? Honest opinion - but there is no evidence of a factual basis for her opinion (s3 DA 2013 - won't apply)

Claim 2 - 'the defenders in the club' against Amy

claire43 — 2026-03-17 15:09:28 UTC

Slander - only spoken, not permanent. Does he have to prove special damage? Allegation of professional unfitness (McManus v Beckham)

s1 DA 2013 Serious harm to the reputation

Elements of Defamation

1) Is it defamatory - lowers the defendant in the estimation of right thinking members of society (Sim v Stretch)

2) Refer to the C? small enough group that people know who they are

A peg/pointer is not necessary (Morgan v Oldhams Press)

Knuffer v London - size class.

3) Published - spoken to a third party.

Defences - Honest opinion? s3 DA 2013 - no evidence of a factual basis for her comment - no defence.

Claim 3 - Igor against Amy

claire43 — 2026-03-17 15:09:53 UTC

Slander - 'hitting the bottle'

Professional unfitness - doesn't have to prove special damage as long as he has suffered serious harm to his reputation.

Elements

1) Defamatory? - Innuendo - False/popular (Lewis v Daily Telegraph)

2) Refer to him

3) Published

No defence no factual basis for her opinion.

Claim 4 - Howard against Benadette/Daily Truth (vicarious liability)

claire43 — 2026-03-17 15:41:08 UTC

Libel - actionable per se without proof of special damage. He will need to prove serious harm to his reputation

Elements defamation

1) Defamatory

2) Refers to him

3) Published

Repetition - Vizetelly//Slipper v BBC

Defences -

1) Honest Opinion - factual basis is required. She received the information from someone who is close to Howard within the club ie footballer's wife and had no reason to believe it was untrue. (s3 DA 2013) . Amy wasn't a reliable source as she had had a few drinks

2) Public Opinion? s4 DA 2013 - It wasn't urgent, A reasonable journalist would have waited for them to return from training to obtain comment and provide a balanced article. (Reynolds criteria) in relation to 'circumstances' of the publication.

Claim 5 - Defenders against Bernadette/Daily Truth

claire43 — 2026-03-17 15:48:32 UTC