Leading decision on DEFAMATION
TORT, TORTS, TORT CASES, LAWSUITS, PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER, DEFAMATION LIBEL SLANDER NEWSPAPERS INNUENDO, SLIP AND FALL, NEGLIGENCE, DAMAGES, NUISANCE
Monday, December 30, 2013
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Monday, December 16, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
KHIMJI AND ANOTHER v. TANGA MOMBASA TRANSPORT CO. LTD [1962] E.A. 419
Classic illustration on volenti
fit non injuria
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Sunday, July 28, 2013
CHIMALA STORES v. ZAMBIA TANZANIA ROAD SERVICES LTD (1970) HCD 232
The High Court of Tanzania on DEFAMATION
SAIDI ALI MASWANYA v. AFRICAN BUYER AND TRADER PUBLICATIONS LTD AND OTHERS
Hon. Robert KISANGA on DEFAMATION.
Monday, March 18, 2013
PHILLIP THOMAS OLOTU v. JOHN MARTIN MAFUMBILO
Phillip Thomas Olotu
v. John Martin Mafumbilo
Defamation
Saturday, February 23, 2013
AJINOMOTO SWEETENERS EUROPE SAS v. ASDA STORES LTD [2010] EWCA CIV 609
In Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 609, the Court of Appeal, comprised of Lord Justices Sedley and Rimer and Sir Scott Baker, held that the single meaning rule was confined solely to an action in defamation. Making no attempt to disguise his distaste for the long-standing ‘rule’, Lord Justice Sedley described it as “anomalous, frequently otiose and, where not otiose, unjust” (at [31]). Signalling his agreement, Lord Justice Rimer stated at [40], “The single meaning rule in defamation is the product of an accident of history resulting in a fiction that assumes that the reasonable man will understand a particular statement in only one way – its supposed single natural and ordinary meaning. Like most legal fictions, it is artificial and has something of the absurd about it.” There was, he said, no sound basis for importing it into the tort of malicious falsehood.
At issue in Ajinomoto Sweeteners was a phrase contained on a brand of health foods, which stated “No hidden nasties” together with the comment “No artificial colours or flavours and no aspartame”. The European makers of aspartame took issue with the claim, alleging that it constituted a malicious falsehood. The High Court judge who heard the matter at first instance, Justice Tugendhat, had found that there were four possible meanings that could be ascribed to the comments. Having rejected two, the Judge was left with one that conveyed a meaning that was damaging to the plaintiff, and one which did not. After applying the ‘single meaning rule’, his Honour opted for the innocuous meaning, on the basis that the Court should not select one bad meaning where there were non-defamatory meanings also available.
Two weeks after Justice Tugendhat’s decision in Ajinomoto Sweeteners was overturned, his Honour was introducing another threshold into defamation claims. In Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Limited[2010] EWHC 1414 (QB), a case dealing with a less than favourable book review, Justice Tugendhat, granting summary judgment to the defendant, read the element of “seriousness” into Lord Atkin’s classic statement as to what constitutes defamation.
CREDITS:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)