Roadmap: Defamation

Is the Claimant a government body? [[Yes->No standing to sue (Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers)]] [[No->Is the Defendant domiciled in the UK or a member state?]]

No standing to sue (//Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers//)

Is the Defendant domiciled in the UK or a member state? [[No->Need leave to sue (s9(2))]] [[Yes->Has the Claimant suffered serious harm (natural person) or serious financial loss (trading corporation)?]]

Need leave to sue (s9(2))

Has the Claimant suffered serious harm (natural person) or serious financial loss (trading corporation)? [[No->No cause of action (s1)]] [[Yes->Does the statement lower the Claimant's reputation in the esteem of right-thinking members of society?]]

No cause of action (s1)

Does the statement lower the Claimant's reputation in the esteem of right-thinking members of society? [[No->No cause of action (Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Ltd)]] [[Yes->Did the statement relate to the Claimant?]]

No cause of action (//Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Ltd//)

Did the statement relate to the Claimant? [[No->No cause of action (Morgan v Oldhams)]] [[Yes->Was the statement published to a third party?]]

No cause of action (//Morgan v Oldhams//)

Was the statement published to a third party? (Remember special rules on republication s8 and McManus v Beckham) [[No->No cause of action (Theaker v Richardson)]] [[Yes->Is there a relevant defence?]]

No cause of action (//Theaker v Richardson//)

Is there a relevant defence? [[No->Claim in defamation]] [[Yes->No cause of action]] [[Truth (s2)->Truth (s2)]] [[Honest opinion (s3)->Honest opinion (s3)]] [[Privilege->Privilege]] [[Public interest (s4)->Public interest (s4)]] [[Operator of websites (s5)->Operator of websites (s5)]]

Claim in defamation What is the remedy? - Damages - Injunction - Summary of judgment published (s12)

No cause of action

Truth (''s2'') - Substantial truth - Evidence in support

Honest opinion (''s3'') - Statement of opinion (not fact) - Basis of opinion made clear - Honest person could have the opinion - Defendant actually had the opinion - No need to prove lack of malice

Privilege Absolute privilege: No need to prove lack of malice. Qualified privilege: Must prove lack of malice or dominant or improper motive (''//Horrock v Lowe//'')

Public interest (''s4'') Did the Defendant reasonably believe the publication was a matter of public interest?

Operator of websites (''s5'') 1. Must be able to identify maker of statement. 2. Claimant gave notice of complaint. 3. Defendant responded appropriately.