OBLIGATIONS II

SEMINAR TWO

THE LAW OF DEFAMATION

General Reading:
R. Mulheron, Principles of Tort Law (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2016), Chapter 15, pp. 752-
832.
Alternatively, you can read: C.Witting, Street on Torts, 14th ed. (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2015),
Chapters 20-21, pp. 521-588.

A selection of cases which will be useful for the problem question:

Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2007] 1 AC 359
Cooke v MGN Ltd [2014] EWHC 2831
Contostavlos v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 1339
Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 1614
Flood v Times Newspapers [2012] UKSC 11
Bunt v Tilley [2006] 3 All ER 336

Discussion questions (which can be discussed separately, or in the context of the

problem question):
1. What is the approach to be taken in determining whether words are defamatory in nature?
2. The long-awaited Defamation Act 2013 enacted significant reforms in this area of the law
which ones do you think are particularly welcome and why?

Problem question:
Blue View restaurant, owned by Dominic Dallas, has recently opened in a trendy,
redeveloped harbour area of Wharfville. Dominic decides to throw a lavish, celebratory
opening function. Attending the opening function is Jack Sprat, a restaurant critic for the
Wharfville Daily Star, a free newspaper, which is also published online. The day after the
function, Jack publishes the following review:

THE ONLY GOOD THING IS THE VIEW!

Blue View is blight on our harbours development. Rarely do I come across such a
combination of unpalatable flavours, flawed menu, and terrible service! Why on earth would
anyone put pineapple garnish with lamb? The meat arrived medium-rare, as ordered. But
the pineapple was chewy, tasteless and offensive. I scraped the miserable garnish as far as I
could to the side of my plate.
Upon hearing of the review, Dominic Dallas calls Jack at the Wharfville Daily Stars office.
Jack refuses to justify his review. Dominic invites Jack to re-dine at the restaurant, but Jack
declines.
Angela Acara is an academic undertaking a study in the decline of food quality. In one of her
papers, published in the peer-reviewed journal, Food for thought, she cites Jacks review as
an example of the lamentable decline in restaurant standards and satisfaction. Blue View
rapidly loses business, and closes within two months.
Jacks review is accompanied by a picture of diners attending the opening function. One of
the diners pictured in the review is Sarah Salad, a 30 year old schoolteacher at the local
primary school. Sarah is pictured at a table with Larry Liya, the local MP and a member of
the Truth party. Larry has been the subject of a police investigation into paedophilia, but has
never been charged. Sarahs ex-boyfriend, Bob Bitta, sees the picture in the newspaper, and,
incensed with bitterness, posts a copy of the picture onto a social media site, Natter, with the
following comment: Surely Sarah the slut is a bit old for Mr Liya, but I guess that children
cannot appreciate fine dining. The message is re-nattered (re-posted) by thousands of
other site followers.
Sarah, who has lived in Wharfville all of her life, is hurt by the message, and is concerned
that the good relationships which she has formed with the parents, schoolchildren and
colleagues will be ruined as a result. She complains to Natters proprietors, who initially
respond by declaring that they do not get involved in postings on their site. Larry also
complains to the sites proprietors who, after two months, agree to remove the posting.
Advise all parties as to any possible causes of action in Defamation.

*****************************