An area of law giving rise to few court actions, this specialism
is both involved and evolving. We are therefore pleased to offer
our clients the expert services of Michael Jones QC, head of our
dispute resolution department and Advocacy Unit, who has acted in a
considerable number of defamation actions and offering experience
across the spectrum of this area of law.
Keeping our finger on the pulse.
We monitor and advise on court judgments and legislative
developments in defamation law, and the closely related emerging
law on privacy, confidence and harassment. Current developments
include the consultation paper before the Scottish legislature
considering the rights of close relatives to bring defamation
actions on behalf of the deceased, and the provisions of the
Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill concerning
non-harassment orders (NHOs).
Relevancy, repetition and ridicule. Case
dismissed.
MacLeod v Newsquest Ltd (2007). Upon
publication of an article including a statement that he was "justly
renowned for his powers of invention", Mr MacLeod raised an action
for defamation, alleging that this implied he was not a fit and
proper person to be a journalist. In defence, Michael Jones QC
argued that the piece would be readily understood by a reasonable
reader to be satire. If only a jest had been meant, no injury could
have been said to have been done. The action was dismissed.
Robertson v Newsquest Ltd (2006). Mr Robertson
raised an action following publication of an article relating to
his previous action for defamation, relying on the "repetition
rule", which forbids further reporting of comments found to have
been defamatory. Michael contended that the full context of an
article must be considered to decide whether it is defamatory. The
Court agreed, and as the article related to an apology and an award
of damages, the action was dismissed.
Paton v Sarwar (2000). Mr Paton contended that
certain defamatory allegations had been made against him by Mr
Sarwar. Michael argued on behalf of the defender that there was no
basis of relevant fact to support the pursuer's claim for
defamation, as no attempt to define the defamatory statement had
been made. As a result, there could be no causal connection between
any alleged malice and Mr Paton's injured feelings. The Court
accepted these submssions and dismissed the action.