Russian princess complained about the words used to the soundtrack in the movie about Rasputin. She complained that the words used suggested that she has either been raped or used by Rasputin. The film was in a permanent form and it should be held liable. It was held that the speech in the movie was suggestive, and it was permanent, and should be held as liable.

It was said that the defendant said to the clamant ‘you are a convicted person and I will not have you here’. It was irrelevant that the claimant has been convicted because it would suggest that people would exclude him from society. But if there was suspicion that he was convicted you need to prove harm.

Pictures are capable of bearing defamatory meaning; this concerns where the wax work models was capable of carrying a defamatory meaning because of its placement. His statue was put in a room with alleged murders making it seem like he was one too. 

A statement is defamatory if it exposes C to ridicule or contempt; a journalist makes some remarks about the claimant who was an actor and a film director Steven Berkoff, suggesting he was hideous. He compared the director to Frankenstein, saying the monster was better looking. It was held that the words used were intended to ridicule the director and his image has been damaged (interpretation of the words is key)

Here, the claimant was a member of a club, reporting a crime that happened in the club. He was ill-treated for reporting the crime. There was a note in the club put up a note with a pun on his name. He claimed that this note lowered his reputation, and sued for this. The court said that his reputation would not be lowered as he reported a crime, and should be seen in a better light, despite the notice. You do not look at the intention, but what right thinking members of the society would think after.

Here, you have a barrister who happened to share the name of a fictional character, who was depicted as someone with very little morals. He had incidentally contributed to the newspaper who published the fictional character. They published an account of when this character went to a carnival, and showed his antics. The real barrister didn’t do any of these things. The friends of the real Jones believed that the article about him. The jury had to decide whether a reasonable person would think that the cartoon is about the barrister too, despite the fact that the newspaper didn’t mean to depict the barrister. It was held that the newspaper and the publisher were liable as intention doesn't matter in defamation cases, only the outcome. 

The Sun newspaper reported that a girl was kidnapped by a gang who was engaged in criminal activity. The information was incorrect and the girl had been staying with Mr Morgan. He produced witnesses that have seen the two together, and that reading the article they thought that he was a part of the criminal gang. The court said that there was enough information to suggest the article was about him. It didn’t matter that the reader didn’t think the article to be true, because it is an objective test.

There was an ad appearing in the Sunday Mirror that advertised a porn website. The woman that brought the claim said that she looked like the person in the photo, and many people identified her with that picture. It was held that if the newspaper was held to be liable would have to be strict liability, and that it couldn’t be justified under Art.10. The claim in defamation failed, if it succeeded it would place an impossible burden on the publisher to check every picture. 

The claimant is a retired police officer and he had been described in a tv documentary as an incompetent buffoon, and portrayed as such. Before it was on TV it was played to the press, and the query was whether that was a publication. Several newspapers wrote about the documentary, all adding the portrayal of him. It was held that only the original tv show would be held liable, not the newspapers. The COA rejected this argument and said that a person needs to look whether the repetition was reasonably foreseeable? If the answer is yes then you are responsible for all the repetition.

VB went to one of the supermarkets where they sold DB autographs, saying that it was not his signature, advising people not to buy from that shop as it was fake. It was held that this was slander, as it was his signature, and she should be liable for all the profits loss by the shops. It was held that she would know that what she said would be repeated in the press and she should be held liable for all the statements.  

It was suggested that the service providers may be liable if they have been notified of defamatory material. They are responsible from that point on. It was suggested that they can chose to do something about it or not.

(Case about the multiple publication rule). Here, the case went to the European Court of Human Rights and it also said that there was no breach of Article 10. The Times argued that with regards to internet, that the multiple publication rule had restricted the multiple access archive, and that this had a chilling effect on the freedom of expression. It was said that all that a newspaper had to do was to publish an appropriate qualification correcting the article. 

 S.8 of the Defamation Act 2013 subsequently introduced the single-publication rule, reversing the common law. 

The IPC magazine publishes an article entitled, „What makes you divorce the richest man in the world“, talking about the claimant’s sexual behaviour in the past and currently. She wanted an injunction preventing the publication from going ahead. She didn’t want it to be published further. At the same time the newspaper asked for the injunction to be lifted, saying that they can prove the truth of this article as a whole (the sting), proving the promiscuity of the claimant. If they can establish that she was a promiscuous woman, they can prove that what was published was true. The injunction was lifted.

Lord Hodson, "If one repeats a rumor, then one adds one's own authority to it" 

Said that the natural ordinary meaning includes any innuendo which a reasonable reader would take from the words. A reasonable reader would not assume that a newspaper is guilty just because he knew there is an investigation about it. He would wait until the verdict because in this country you are not guilty until proven otherwise. The HoL held that there was no guilt, because otherwise police investigations would not work. 

The meaning of the passage was not that the BCA was promoting what it knew to be bogus treatments but that it was promoting what S contended were bogus treatments. Was the comment expressed as a fact or opinion? This case went on to the COA, and they said that when you think about Singhs article, you think that it is his opinion. S says that it was his opinion that the treatments were bogus, not something promoting the BCA. It was a valued judgement, which can only be an opinion.

Here, you have a prominent politician in Ireland. There was an article published with talked about the crisis in Ireland, saying that he misled the government deliberately and dishonestly. They claimed qualified privilege, saying that the publication was in favour of the people. Initially the court found in favour of the claimant, awarding him damages in the amount of 1p, but then the case was appealed. The COA decided that political matters only give you the ability to use qualified privilege, and in here it was too stretched. It was said that the media was given too much scope here, and it would fail to protect reputation if this behaviour was allowed.