![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results of a systematic analysis of all judgments handed down by the High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords in defamation claims brought by corporate claimants between 2004 and 2013. The intention is to widen the range of methods with which to assess both common arguments for reforming corporate defamation law, and the ‘serious financial loss’ requirement imposed on most corporate claimants by s 1(2) of the Defamation Act 2013. The results of the study add weight to some of the arguments put forward in support of the removal of the corporate right to sue. The research also highlights the difficulty of finding a principled and effective distinction between different kinds of corporate claimant. It suggests that this exercise may be both impossible and counterproductive, and recommends that all non-human claimants should be treated in the same way.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Damian Carney, Lisa Wheeler, Greg Osborne, Eric Barendt and Judith Townend for their comments on draft versions.
Notes on contributor
David J Acheson is a PhD candidate at the University of Portsmouth, funded by a scholarship from the Portsmouth Business School.
Notes
1 South Hetton Coal Company Ltd v North-Eastern News Association Ltd [1893] 1 QB 133 (CA) 138.
2 Jo Glanville and Jonathan Heawood, Free Speech is Not for Sale: The Impact of English Libel Law on Freedom of Expression (report by English PEN and Index on Censorship, 2009) 10 (‘FSINFS'); David Howarth, ‘Libel: Its Purpose and Reform’ (2011) 74(6) Modern Law Review 845, 873–75.
3 See Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2007] UKHL 44 (‘Jameel v WSJ’) [152] (Baroness Hale): the proposition that ‘a company is in the same position as an individual’ when making a claim in defamation was capable of being overruled by the House of Lords. Before the 2013 Act, the same could have been said of the existence of the corporate right to sue.
4 Alastair Mullis and Andrew Scott, ‘Something Rotten in the State of English Libel Law? A Rejoinder to the Clamour for Reform of Defamation’ (2009) 6 Communications Law 173, 173.
5 FSINFS (n 2) 10. The Australian provisions are: Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (Australian Capital Territory) s 121; Defamation Act 2006 (Northern Territory) s 8; Defamation Act 2005 (New South Wales) s 9; Defamation Act 2005 (Queensland) s 9; Defamation Act 2005 (South Australia) s 9; Defamation Act 2005 (Tasmania) s 9; Defamation Act 2005 (Victoria) s 9; Defamation Act 2005 (Western Australia) s 9.
6 Defamation HL Bill (2010–12) 003, cl 11.
7 Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Press Standards, Privacy and Libel (HC 2009-10, 362-I) para 178 (‘CMS Committee Report’).
8 Ministry of Justice, The Government's Response to the Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill (Cm 8295, 2012) para 91 (‘Government Response to Joint Committee’); HC Deb 16 April 2013, vol 561, col 269 (Helen Grant MP). See also Ministry of Justice, Draft Defamation Bill: Consultation (CP3/11, 2011) paras 143 and 145 (‘MoJ Consultation’).
9 HL Deb 23 April 2013, vol 744, col 1365 (‘HL Deb’).
10 Ibid, col 1375.
11 Eric Barendt, ‘What is the Point of Libel Law?’ (1999) 52 Current Legal Problems 110, 110.
12 Examples include Eric Barendt and others, Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect (Clarendon Press, 1st edn 1997); Russell L Weaver and others, The Right to Speak Ill: Defamation, Reputation and Free Speech (Carolina Academic Press, 1st edn 2006); Andrew T Kenyon, Defamation: Comparative Law and Practice (UCL Press, 1st edn 2006); Judith Townend, ‘Online Chilling Effects in England and Wales' (2014) 3(2) Internet Policy Review doi:10.14763/2014.2.252.
13 Frederick Schauer, ‘Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the Chilling Effect’ (1978) 58 Boston University Law Review 685, 693.
14 Marc A Franklin, ‘Winners and Losers and Why: A Study of Defamation Litigation’ (1980) 5(3) American Bar Foundation Research Journal 455, 497. The study was extended in Marc A Franklin, ‘Suing Media for Libel: A Litigation Study’ (1981) 6(3) American Bar Foundation Research Journal 795. See Randall P Bezanson, Gilbert Cranberg and John Soloski, Libel Law and the Press: Myth and Reality (Macmillan, 1st edn 1987) 238: ‘prior to Franklin's studies there had been no systematically obtained data about the outcome of libel cases.’
15 Dan Kozlowski, ‘“For the Protection of the Reputation or Rights of Others”: The European Court of Human Rights' Interpretation of the Defamation Exception in Article 10(2)’ (2006) 11 Communications Law and Policy 133.
16 Ibid, 136.
17 Kay L Levine, ‘The Law is Not the Case: Incorporating Empirical Methods into the Culture of Case Analysis' (2006) 17 University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy 283, 284.
18 Ibid, 286.
19 Mark A Hall and Ronald F Wright, ‘Systematic Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions' (2008) 96 California Law Review 63, 87.
20 Ibid, 66.
21 eg Fiona Donson, ‘Libel Cases and Public Debate – Some Reflections on whether Europe Should be Concerned about SLAPPs' (2010) 19(1) Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 83, drawing on McDonalds Corp v Steel [1997] EWHC 366 (QB) and British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350.
22 eg Barendt and others, Libel and the Media (n 12).
23 Chris Dent and Andrew T Kenyon, ‘Defamation Law's Chilling Effect: A Comparative Content Analysis of Australian and US Newspapers' (2004) 9 Media & Arts Law Review 89.
24 This subject is considered below: text to notes 79–147.
25 Levine (n 17) 286.
26 Text to notes 237–55.
27 The Supreme Court has not yet handed down a judgment in a defamation case involving a corporate claimant.
28 Also included is a failed attempt to sue by an unincorporated trust: Case 43.
29 In October 2000 and April 1999 respectively.
30 See text to notes 40–52.
31 As a result of the Defamation Act 2013, s 16, sub-ss (4)–(7). See Case 37a [41]–[42].
32 Franklin, ‘Winners and Losers' (n 14) 461.
33 Case 5 [5] (Collins J).
34 Case 44c.
35 Case 44a.
36 eg Case 49a; Case 41a (substantially redacted).
37 eg Pritchard Englefield v Steinberg [2005] EWHC 953 (Ch).
38 eg Jameel v Times Newspapers Ltd (Pre-Trial Review) [2005] EWHC 1219 (QB).
39 Text to notes 55–78.
40 Kenyon, Defamation (n 12) 107. See also Barendt and others, Libel and the Media (n 12) 40: ‘only a small proportion of libel writs lead to the case being set down for trial, let alone to a trial itself.’
41 Claims filed in district registries, of which no central records are kept, were therefore not included: eg Seafresh Ltd v Shaw <www.onebrickcourt.com/barristers.aspx?menu=main&pageid=25&barristerid=34>
42 eg McGrath v Dawkins [2013] EWCA Civ 206.
43 eg the striking out of the defamation claim in Tesla Motors Ltd v BBC [2011] EWHC 2760 (QB).
44 eg RFS Capital LLC v MD7 Europe (QB, 6 October 2009) <www.5rb.com/case/rfs-capital-llc-rfs-capital-bv-v-md7-europe-michael-gianni>
45 eg Medicolegal Investigations Ltd v Sharma (Statement in Open Court, 18 July 2007).
46 eg the full text of the judgment in Case 3. Transcription costs were beyond the budget for this research.
47 eg the order of Sharp J referred to in Case 14 [10].
48 eg the judgment of Elias J against which an appeal was heard in Case 20a. That this document had been destroyed was confirmed by an email from the Queen's Bench Action Department to the author (4 April 2016).
49 CMS Committee Report (n 7) paras 207–208.
50 Ministry of Justice, Report of the Libel Working Group (23 March 2010) para 8; MoJ Consultation (n 8) Annex E: Impact Assessment, paras 2.14–23.
51 Judith Townend, ‘Closed Data: Defamation and Privacy Disputes in England and Wales' (2013) 5(1) Journal of Media Law 31; Kenyon, Defamation (n 12) 107.
52 Townend, ‘Closed Data’ (n 51) 32.
53 MoJ Consultation (n 8) Annex E: Impact Assessment, para 2.61.
54 A precise date is not available for Cases 29, 42 or 53, but the dates of the judgments would suggest that it is likely that at least one of these claims was also filed in the period in question.
55 Case 9.
56 Case 1; Case 2.
57 Case 24; Case 49. Sunderland Housing Co Ltd is the former name of Gentoo Group Ltd.
58 Case 10; Case 21; Cases 24 and 49; Case 34 (1st claimant); Case 43.
59 eg Case 7; Case 34 (2nd claimant); Case 46.
60 eg Case 1; Case 2; Case 6.
61 eg Case 8.
62 eg Case 50.
63 Case 33; Case 20 (both in respect of letters); Case 17 (signs displayed on defendants' properties).
64 Jenny Afia and Phil Hartley, ‘Lord Lester's Draft Defamation Bill 2010: A Practical Analysis' (2010) 2(2) Journal of Media Law 183, 191.
65 Case 29.
66 Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133.
67 Case 48.
68 Hall and Wright (n 19) 108.
69 Cases 7, 34 and 46.
70 Case 34.
71 Case 16; Case 40.
72 Russell Hotten, ‘FT Agrees Huge Payout as Middleweek Case is Finally Settled’ Daily Telegraph (London, 18 January 2006) <www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2930366/FT-agrees-huge-payout-as-Middleweek-case-is-finally-settled.html>
73 In addition, the claim in Case 40a was struck out against two out of three claimants. In Case 11, the claimant was able to extract settlements from two defendants before the action was struck out against the third.
74 Case 25.
75 Case 9.
76 Case 6.
77 Case 31g.
78 Case 5; Case 10; Case 42.
79 Alastair Mullis and Andrew Scott, ‘The Defamation Bill 2012: Missing the Wood (With No Excuses)’ (Inforrm, 6 June 2012) <inforrm.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/the-defamation-bill-2012-missing-the-wood-with-no-excuses-alastair-mullis-and-andrew-scott/>
80 HL Deb (n 9) col 1371.
81 CMS Committee Report (n 7) para 141.
82 Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill, Report (2010–12, HL 203, HC 930-1) para 47 (‘Joint Committee Report’).
83 Northern Ireland Law Commission, Defamation Law in Northern Ireland (NILC 19, 2014) para 1.10.
84 eg Simon Singh, ‘The Libel Minefield’ (2010) 57(4) The Biologist 190, 191.
85 HL Deb (n 9) col 1380.
86 CMS Committee Report (n 7) para 177.
87 Magnus Boyd, ‘The Proposed Restriction on Corporate Bodies to Sue for Defamation’ (Reframing Libel Symposium, London, 4 November 2010) <http://reframinglibel.com/2011/03/17/the-proposed-restriction-on-corporate-bodies-to-sue-for-defamation/>. The two cases referred to are McDonalds Corp v Steel [1997] EWHC 366 (QB) and Tesco Stores Ltd v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2009] EMLR 5.
88 Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Press Standards, Privacy and Libel: Oral and Written Evidence (HC 2009–10, 362-II) Ev 15, Q17 (‘CMS Evidence’).
89 [1988] 1 WLR 64.
90 [1997] EMLR 415.
91 Boyd (n 87).
92 MoJ Consultation (n 8) para 4. It is difficult to determine the rationale behind sub-s (2) specifically, given its late inclusion into the Bill. The specific focus on financial loss probably reflects the perception that corporations are unable to suffer other kinds of loss: Joint Committee Report (n 82) para 110. The pleading of financial loss is considered below, at text to notes 185–208.
93 Joint Committee Report (n 82) para 109; Government Response to Joint Committee (n 8) para 90.
94 Text to notes 209–36.
95 Even noting the lack of comparative statistics, in any area of litigation nearly 40% of claims being criticised would be considered a significant problem.
96 Each case was placed into only one category. Where cases might have fallen into more than one category, the decision of higher courts was given more weight. Where they fell into more than one of the ‘abusive’ categories (2, 3 or 4) they were placed in the more serious of those.
97 Case 45.
98 Case 45a [20].
99 Ibid, [21]. Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75, in which the ‘publication … of the allegedly defamatory material could be shown to have reached nobody to whom it meant anything’: Case 45a [20].
100 Case 45c [24] (Eady J).
101 Case 43.
102 Ibid, [10].
103 Case 27 [63].
104 Case 23 [143].
105 Case 50.
106 CMS Evidence (n 88) Ev 130, Q429 (Nick Davies).
107 Case 16b [31]; Case 40a [123].
108 Case 26. A similar situation arose in Case 25: compare Case 25b [14]–[15] and Case 25c [23].
109 Case 26a [70].
110 Ibid, [81].
111 Case 26b [25].
112 Ibid, [34].
113 Ibid, [33]. It is interesting to note that both the High Court and Court of Appeal referred to the human and corporate claimants' reputations collectively as their ‘reputation’ – this observation may be relevant to the discussion on human claimants below, at text to notes 161–84.
114 Case 35 [34].
115 Ibid, [54].
116 Ibid, [52].
117 Ibid, [51].
118 Case 54 [4].
119 Ibid, [65].
120 Case 19 [80].
121 Case 21 [11].
122 Ibid, [14].
123 Case 6 [57] (Sir Charles Gray).
124 Ibid, [58].
125 Case 2b [15] (Eady J). See also Case 10b [12]; Case 39 [94]; Case 41a [75]; Case 50.
126 Case 28 [8] (Eady J).
127 Case 5 [7] (Collins J).
128 Case 44c [57] (Warby J).
129 Case 18b [3] (Smith J), in relation to the 4th defendant. A series of criticisms, mainly tangential to the defamation claim, were also made in Case 18a.
130 Case 38 [3] (Judge Moloney QC).
131 Case 51 [23] (Eady J).
132 Case 40a [123] (Eady J).
133 Case 27 [44] (Tugendhat J). See also Case 37 [50]; Case 24a [15], [39]; Case 11a [50]; Case 26b [33].
134 Case 34 [183] (Tugendhat J).
135 Case 33 [48]. See also Case 4b [7], holding that the defence had ‘been built on a lie’.
136 Case 22 [50]–[59].
137 Case 16c; Case 40b.
138 Case 6.
139 Ben Clay, ‘University Abandons Failed £150,000 Libel Appeal’ The Salfordian (13 May 2013) <www.thesalfordian.co.uk/2013/05/university-abandons-failed-150000-libel-appeal/>
140 Mullis and Scott, ‘Something Rotten’ (n 4) 180–81.
141 See Case 39 [87]. Article 6 is applicable to corporations: eg Agrokompleks v Ukraine App no 23465/03 (ECtHR, 6 October 2011).
142 eg Matthew Collins, Collins on Defamation (OUP, 1st edn 2014) paras 7.72–73.
143 Case 30b; Case 11c.
144 Case 30a [40]; Case 11a [47].
145 Case 28.
146 Ibid, [10].
147 [2005] EWCA Civ 75.
148 CMS Committee Report (n 7) para 178. Cf Joint Committee Report (n 82) para 112; Alastair Mullis and Andrew Scott, ‘Worth the Candle? The Government's Draft Defamation Bill’ (2011) 3(1) Journal of Media Law 1, 16; Afia and Hartley (n 64) 190.
149 CMS Committee Report (n 7) para 176; FSINFS (n 2) 10. Cf Jameel v WSJ (n 3) [21] (Lord Bingham).
150 CMS Committee Report (n 7) para 176; Joint Committee Report (n 82) para 112; Mullis and Scott, ‘Something Rotten’ (n 4) 179.
151 Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 609 [30] (Sedley LJ).
152 Eric Barendt, Freedom of Speech (OUP, 2nd edn 2005) 209.
153 Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill, Evidence (2010–12, HL 203, HC 930-III) Ev 51 (Media and Communications Committee of the Business Law Section of the Law Council of Australia). Hereafter ‘Joint Committee Evidence’.
154 A similar point was made by Magnus Boyd (n 87), who suggested that the claim brought by Tesco against the Guardian was not an example of the chilling effect, because ‘having been provided with a clear denial before publication (together with evidence), the Guardian still published the allegations’.
155 Afia and Hartley (n 64) 189.
156 Case 3.
157 Case 18c [4].
158 Case 14 (breach of confidence); Case 34 (data protection/harassment); Case 20 (breach of contract).
159 Case 17 (malicious falsehood).
160 Case 16 and Case 23. Not included are Case 51 or Tesla (n 43), in which the claims in defamation were struck out but the claims in malicious falsehood were not.
161 Case 16; Case 33 and Case 40.
162 Case 30b [36].
163 HC Deb 24 April 2013, vol 561, col 917. One must ask from whose perspective Garnier is defining ‘extravagant’ – it may be that he and his colleagues could afford to pay these damages, but I certainly couldn’t.
164 Case 14 [101]; Case 40b [35].
165 Case 7; Case 34.
166 Case 17b: see n 196.
167 Case 20; Case 22.
168 Case 4a.
169 Ibid, [73].
170 Ibid, [69].
171 Case 33.
172 Defamation Act 1996, s 9(1)(c).
173 Collins Stewart Ltd v The Financial Times Ltd (No 2) [2005] EWHC 262 (QB): ‘the defining characteristic of an award of aggravated damages is that its function is to provide a claimant with compensation (“solatium”) for injury to his or her feelings … a company has no feelings to injure’ (Gray J).
174 Case 33 [45].
175 Rolph points out the potential side-effect of this – the greater availability of pre-publication injunctions in malicious falsehood: David Rolph, ‘Corporations' Right to Sue for Defamation: An Australian Perspective’ (2011) 22(7) Entertainment Law Review 195, 199–200.
176 Case 16c [13].
177 Ibid, [10].
178 A claimant in malicious falsehood is not required to prove special damage where the statement complained of was ‘calculated to cause pecuniary damage’.
179 Case 16c [20].
180 Case 33.
181 This point is unclear: see Richard Parkes and Alastair Mullis (eds), Gatley on Libel and Slander (Sweet and Maxwell, 12th edn 2013) para 21.13, note 100 (‘Gatley’).
182 Mark Pearson, ‘A Review of Australia's Defamation Reforms after a Year of Operation’ (2007) 29(1) Australian Journalism Review 41, citing Mark Polden, ‘In-house Counsel at Fairfax Media’.
183 See text to notes 244–47.
184 HL Deb (n 9) col 1367 (Lord McNally).
185 Joint Committee Report (n 82) para 114.
186 Joint Committee Evidence (n 153) Ev 21 (Law Society).
187 Jameel v WSJ (n 3) [26] (Lord Bingham), [102] (Lord Hope), [121] (Lord Scott).
188 Ibid, [91] (Lord Hoffman); Tony Weir, Casebook on Tort (Sweet and Maxwell, 10th edn 2004) 637; Jan Oster, ‘The Criticism of Trading Corporations and their Right to Sue in Defamation’ (2011) 2 Journal of European Tort Law 255, 279.
189 Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 524 (CA) 532–33 (Bowen LJ).
190 Joint Committee Report (n 82) para 115.
191 Case 40b [5].
192 One effect of s 1(2) of the 2013 Act may be to encourage claimants to plead financial loss earlier on in the litigation process.
193 Case 54.
194 Case 32 [23].
195 Including two in Ontulmus v Collett (Case 44), one for each corporate claimant.
196 Case 17b [32]–[37].
197 Case 44c [8]: the second claimant, MTH Yatcilik, claimed €900,000 in lost commission.
198 Case 13 [19].
199 eg Case 18b [9]; Case 36 [7].
200 Case 15 [25], [47] (Tugendhat J).
201 Case 37 [39].
202 Case 2a [70] (Tugendhat J).
203 Case 39 [86].
204 Case 16c [10]; Case 40b [6]; Case 46a [31].
205 Case 34 [44] (with respect to Hine Solicitors, the second claimant); Case 14 [46], [55], [100].
206 [2015] EWHC 2628 (QB) [29]–[30].
207 See text to notes 168–70.
208 See text to notes 180–81.
209 Joint Committee Report (n 82) para 110.
210 See text to notes 58–62.
211 Defamation Act 2009 (Ireland) s 12; Defamation Act 1992 (NZ) s 6.
212 See n 5.
213 McDonalds Corp v Steel [1999] EWCA Civ 1144; Jameel v WSJ [2005] EWCA Civ 74 [99].
214 FSINFS (n 2) 10.
215 Joint Committee Evidence (n 153) Ev 51. See also Matt Collins, ‘Protecting Corporate Reputations in the Era of Uniform National Defamation Laws' (2008) 13 Media & Arts Law Review 447.
216 FSINFS (n 2) 10.
217 Joint Committee Report (n 82) para 111, fn 182.
218 See the problems caused by corporate groups in Case 2, Case 6, Case 12, Case 13 and Case 39, for example.
219 eg the claimants in Case 9, Case 30 and Case 51.
220 Case 52 [2]–[5].
221 Mullis and Scott, ‘Worth the Candle?’ (n 148) 16.
222 See, in the context of security for costs, Case 44b [41]: the claimant ‘cannot complain if the court declines to speculate upon evidence that it has chosen not to adduce’ (Tugendhat J).
223 Joint Committee Report (n 82) para 118.
224 Ibid.
225 Alastair Mullis and Andrew Scott, ‘Lord Lester's Defamation Bill 2010 – A Distorted View of the Public Interest?’ (2011) 1 Communications Law 6, 14.
226 See text to notes 121–22.
227 The BCA's lawsuit was described by the Court of Appeal as ‘an endeavour … to silence one of its critics': Case 10b [12].
228 David J Acheson, ‘The Defamation Act 2013: What Exactly is “A Body that Trades for Profit”?’ (2015) 20(4) Communications Law 113. Cf Gatley (n 181) para 2.8.
229 ‘Critical Response’ Private Eye (London, 1 April 2016) 40.
230 Case 34. The Law Society's claim in defamation was unsuccessful. Another example might be Gentoo Group Ltd (Cases 24 and 49), described as a ‘charitable community benefit society’: <http://www.gentoogroup.com/about-us/who-we-are/>
231 Gatley (n 181) para 8.19.
232 Case 43.
233 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New South Wales v Davies [2011] NSWSC 1445.
234 One reference to a seemingly legitimate use of the right to sue by a charity in the UK is found in David Hooper, Reputations Under Fire: Winners and Losers in the Libel Business (Little, Brown, 1st edn 2000) 26: describing the successful use of an arbitration procedure by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation against the Sunday Times.
235 This might be achieved by surveying charities; alternatively, if better data on claims filed becomes available in the future, some insight may be gained from investigating that data.
236 Gatley (n 181) para 2.8.
237 Case 4; Case 46.
238 Takenaka (QB, 11 October 2000); [2001] EWCA Civ 348.
239 [2014] EWHC 2161 (QB); [2014] EWHC 3405 (QB).
240 [2015] EWHC 563 (QB).
241 [2015] EWHC 2628 (QB).
242 Chris Hanretty, ‘Haves and Have-Nots before the Law Lords' (2014) 62 Political Studies 686.
243 Case 21; Case 26.
244 Case 16c [2]; Case 22 [5]; Case 33 [13]; Case 40b [9].
245 One way of accounting for this possibility is suggested above, at text to notes 183–84.
246 SPEECH Act 28 USC 4101-5.
247 Case 16c [2].
248 Fiona Patfield, ‘Defamation, Freedom of Speech and Corporations' (1993) 3 Juridical Review 294, 300; Jameel v WSJ (n 3) [158] (Baroness Hale).
249 See Eric Barendt, ‘Balancing Freedom of Expression and the Right to Reputation: Reflections on Reynolds and Reportage’ (2012) 63(1) Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 59, 61.
250 Case 7 [19] (emphasis added).
251 Case 34 [15].
252 Ibid, [182].
253 Paul Mitchell, ‘The Nature of Responsible Journalism’ (2011) 3(1) Journal of Media Law 19, 27; Jonathan Coad, ‘Reynolds and Public Interest – What about Truth and Human Rights?’ (2007) 18(3) Entertainment Law Review 75.
254 Eric Descheemaeker, ‘Three Errors in the Defamation Act 2013’ (2015) 6(1) Journal of European Tort Law 24, 36–40.
255 Ibid, 35.