Fair Comment Case – Supreme Court gives permission to appeal

8 02 2010

On 2 February 2010 the Supreme Court have granted permission to appeal in the “fair comment” case of Joseph v Spiller ([2009] EWCA Civ 1075).  The Notice of Appeal raises general issues about the law of fair comment and the applicant’s Written Submissions criticise the approach of the Court of Appeal as creating “a further level of technicality which is not only unnecessary but also significantly inhibits the defence”.

The case has attracted a certain amount of media publicity – because, in the words of the “Guardian’” piece, “Media organisations hope judgment will clear away tangle of legal complexities around defence of fair comment”.   The facts are not without interest.  The case concerns a “Motown tribute band”, the Gillettes who were booked by Bibi’s restaurant in Leeds.  The restaurant liked them but thought their agent, Mr Spiller was a “total tosser, ignorant, rude and aloof” and decided, in future, too book the band direct.  Mr Spiller was upset and put a notice on his company’s website saying that the Gillettes were “not professional enough to feature in our portfolio” and had told him that “contracts hold no water in legal terms”.

The Gillettes, Mr Joseph and two others, sued for libel.  Eady J held that a “fair comment” defence was not arguable as the allegations were fact not comment and there was no public interest ([2009] EWHC 1152 (QB)).  The Court of Appeal held that the words were, indeed, comment and arguably in the public interest.  However, they rejected the defence of fair comment on the basis that it was not comment “on facts truly stated”.  The only “fact” referred to – that the claimants had advised the defendant that “contracts hold no water in legal terms” was plainly false.  The Court was also unimpressed by the defendants’ point that other generally indicated facts were truly stated.

This will be the first defamation case heard by the highest court since the decision of the House of Lords four years ago in Jameel v Wall Street Journal ([2006] UKHL 44).  As we pointed out in an earlier post, over the last 10 years of its existence the House of Lords only considered 6 mainstream defamation appeals.  The defence of fair comment was last considered by the House of Lords in Telnikoff v Matusevitch ([1992] 2 AC 343). Since that date, the defence has been considered at first instance and in the Court of Appeal on a number of occasions and has been arguably “liberalised”.  It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court will follow the appellants’ invitation to confirm and accelerate that trend.

The case will provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to consider the relationship between the defence of “fair comment” and the Strasbourg distinction between statements of fact and value judgments which covers much of the same ground.   In the Article 10 case law the concept of ‘value judgment’ has been widely construed including, for example, an allegation of lying (see eg Kulis v Poland (Judgment of 18 March 2008, para 51). Nevertheless, as with the approach of the Court of Appeal in the Joseph case it has been held that a value judgment must have a factual basis to support it (Jerusalem v. Austria (2003) 37 EHRR 43).  It remains to be seen whether the less focussed Strasbourg approach will find favour with the English courts.


Actions

Information

3 responses

17 03 2010
Revisited and Updated: “Freedom of Expression, Privacy and Supreme Court” « Inforrm's Blog

[…] In a thoughtful speech entitled “Freedom of Expression and the Role of a Supreme Court” Dame Mary Arden considered a number of freedom of expression cases which had come before Supreme Courts around the world.  She posed the question as to whether Supreme courts should lead the development of the law in this area or leave sensitive matters to democratically elected politicians.  Although the decisions of the courts in freedom of expression and privacy cases have often been extremely controversial, such cases did not come before the House of Lords with any regularity.   The Supreme Court has made one ruling in a “freedom of speech case” – Re Guardian News and Media ([2010] UKSC 1).  The Court has given permission in one defamation case – Joseph v Spiller – which is likely to be heard later this year (see our post here) […]

21 04 2010
Fair Comment Case – Supreme Court Hearing Listed « Inforrm's Blog

[…] Comment Case – Supreme Court Hearing Listed 21 04 2010 In an earlier post we noted that on 2 February 2010 the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal in the “fair […]

11 06 2010
Case Law: Spiller v Joseph – Media Seek Permission to Intervene « Inforrm's Blog

[…] on 26 and 27 July 2010.  The Court’s “Case Details” are to be found here.  We reported on the granting of permission in this case and its listing.  In October 2009 the Court of Appeal […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: