UK Landmark Press-Law Cases

Libel claim by Arron Banks over Carole Cadwalladr's 2019 TED Talk and a tweet suggesting he had broken electoral-funding law and lied about it. At first instance Steyn J ([2022] EWHC 1417 (QB)) held the words were defamatory but that the s.4 public-interest defence succeeded for the relevant period. On appeal the Court of Appeal ([2023] EWCA Civ 219) allowed Banks's appeal in part: the defence fell away for continued publication of the TED Talk after the Electoral Commission published a statement, and Cadwalladr was liable for that later period and ordered to pay £35,000 damages and 60% of costs. Widely cited in the UK anti-SLAPP debate.

The Supreme Court held that in general a person under criminal investigation but not charged has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information about that investigation. Article 8 protection extended to the pre-charge stage, subject to the case-by-case balance with Article 10.

The Duchess of Sussex obtained summary judgment against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline over their publication of extracts from a five-page handwritten letter she had sent to her father. Warby J held she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the letter's contents and that publishing large parts of it was a disproportionate interference not justified by any public interest; he also gave summary judgment on copyright infringement (one authorship issue reserved). The data-protection claim was not determined at that hearing. The Court of Appeal dismissed the newspaper's appeal in December 2021.

The Sun successfully defended a headline calling Johnny Depp a "wife-beater" under the truth defence in Defamation Act 2013 s.2. Nicol J found on the balance of probabilities that 12 of 14 alleged assaults were substantially true.

The Supreme Court set aside a trial judgment because the trial judge's conduct denied the claimant a fair trial. The court also considered the Defamation Act 2013 s.4 public-interest defence and its interaction with Reynolds.

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon ("Tommy Robinson") was found guilty of contempt of court for a Facebook livestream that risked prejudicing an ongoing sexual-grooming trial. Confirms that live-streamed social-media coverage of active proceedings can breach the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

The Supreme Court gave the definitive interpretation of Defamation Act 2013 s.1(1) — "serious harm to the reputation of the claimant". Held that "serious harm" is a factual threshold requiring evidence of actual or likely harm, not an inference from the words alone.

Meaning in defamation is determined by how the ordinary reasonable reader (or in this case, Facebook user) would understand the words in context. Modern social-media publications require judges to consider platform norms and reader habits.

The first libel trial in which a blogger / citizen journalist relied on the statutory public-interest defence in s.4 of the Defamation Act 2013. Warby J rejected the defence: the defendant had no reasonable belief that publishing the defamatory statements was in the public interest, having failed to verify the allegations or seek comment. Amateur publishers invoking s.4 are judged by the same objective standards of pre-publication conduct as professional journalists, and there is normally no public interest in the internal affairs of a private members' club. The claimant recovered £37,500 in damages plus an injunction.

The first substantive UK application of the "right to be forgotten" (right to erasure) established by the CJEU Google Spain judgment. Warby J found for one claimant (NT2) and against another (NT1) based on the differing facts, seriousness of prior conviction, and public interest in each case.

The Court of Appeal considered the interaction between UK data protection (then DPA 1998, now DPA 2018) and the journalism exemption for personal data. Considered when a stay of a subject access request is appropriate pending publication.

The Court of Appeal held that a whistleblower's disclosure can be "in the public interest" for ERA 1996 s.43B purposes even where the primary motivation is personal. The public-interest test is a low threshold and does not require the disclosure to actually be in the public interest — just that the worker reasonably believes it is.

The Supreme Court refused an anonymity order to a man arrested but never charged in relation to a child-abuse investigation. Held that the press has a strong right to report public court proceedings and identify individuals discussed in them, absent specific fair-trial risk.

One of the first major Twitter-defamation cases in England. Warby J found that two tweets by Katie Hopkins had caused serious harm to Jack Monroe's reputation, ordering damages of £24,000 and costs. Confirmed that "serious harm" under s.1 Defamation Act 2013 applies fully to Twitter.

The Supreme Court granted an anonymised injunction restraining The Sun on Sunday from publishing details of a celebrity's extramarital sexual encounters, despite the story already appearing overseas and online. Confirmed that widespread online availability does not automatically defeat a domestic privacy injunction.

The trial judge had ordered that a terrorism trial be held entirely in private, that reports of it be prohibited, and that the defendants be anonymised, using the common law together with ss.4(2) and 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Media organisations appealed under s.159 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Court of Appeal did NOT quash the order: it accepted that the core of the trial had to be heard in camera, holding the case for that "compelling". But it refused the defendants’ anonymity, and it permitted up to ten accredited journalists to attend the bulk of the trial on confidentiality terms, excluded only from a few discrete matters. The leading modern authority on how far a criminal trial can be closed to the press, and on what open justice can still salvage when it is.

The Supreme Court considered the interaction between the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Article 10 ECHR, ruling that FOIA does not incorporate Article 10 rights where the domestic statute provides its own regime. Also confirmed common-law disclosure obligations of statutory inquiry bodies.

The Supreme Court referred to the CJEU questions about whether browsing news content through a media-monitoring service required a separate licence. Confirmed the interaction between UK copyright, the InfoSoc Directive, and the "temporary copies" exception under CDPA 1988 s.28A.

The Court of Appeal held that Google, as host of a Blogger platform, could in principle become a publisher of defamatory comments after being notified of them and failing to remove within a reasonable period. Refined the intermediary-liability framework.

The Supreme Court upheld the Times's Reynolds/qualified-privilege defence in an article alleging a Metropolitan Police officer had taken bribes. Court reinforced the workability of the responsible-journalism defence for investigative pieces on matters of public interest.

The Divisional Court fined the Daily Mirror and Sun £50,000 each for contempt of court over pre-trial coverage of Christopher Jefferies (later cleared) in the Joanna Yeates murder investigation. Confirmed the width of the s.2(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 strict-liability rule during active proceedings.

The Daily Mail and Daily Mirror were fined for publishing photographs of a murder defendant holding a firearm during the trial. The Divisional Court held that publication of images liable to prejudice the jury was strict-liability contempt.

The Court of Appeal upheld an Ofcom finding that talkSPORT presenter Jon Gaunt breached the Broadcasting Code by calling a councillor a "Nazi" during a heated live interview. Balanced Article 10 press freedom against Ofcom's protection of standards.

The Supreme Court lifted anonymity orders that had shielded the identities of individuals subject to asset-freezing orders under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006. Held that the presumption of open justice was strong and required specific justification to displace.

The ECtHR held that ordering the Financial Times, Times, Guardian, Independent, and Reuters to hand over documents that could identify a source breached Article 10 ECHR. Reinforced Goodwin — source protection is a "cornerstone" of press freedom.

Eady J held that Google as a search-engine operator was not the publisher of snippets returned in search results, distinguishing it from primary publishers. Foundational for UK intermediary-liability law in defamation.

Max Mosley won £60,000 damages after the News of the World published surreptitious footage from a private party. Eady J held that there was no genuine public interest and that private sexual activity in a private setting attracted a strong reasonable expectation of privacy.

David Murray, son of JK Rowling, successfully argued that a covert paparazzo photograph of him being pushed in a pram in an Edinburgh street engaged his reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court of Appeal set out factors relevant to whether a child in a public place has such an expectation.

The House of Lords reinforced and refined the Reynolds public-interest defence. Applied a more permissive interpretation of the ten factors, treating them as pointers rather than a rigid checklist. Corporate claimants must show damage to the trading interests to sue in defamation.

Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sued Hello! magazine for publishing unauthorised photographs of their wedding, which OK! magazine had a paid-exclusive contract to cover. Court of Appeal upheld privacy protection over the images and also recognised protection of commercial value in confidential information.

The foundational case for the modern UK tort of misuse of private information. Naomi Campbell won damages over the Mirror's photographs of her leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. Extended breach of confidence into a new privacy protection under HRA 1998 s.6.

Paddy Ashdown's copyright in his private diary was infringed when the Sunday Telegraph published substantial verbatim extracts. Court of Appeal held the fair-dealing defences were not made out on the facts and rejected an Article 10 override.

The Court of Appeal held that repeated hostile press coverage of an individual could constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Established that the PHA can be engaged by press activity, subject to a public-interest defence.

The High Court granted lifelong injunctions preventing publication of any information that would identify Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, convicted of the murder of James Bulger, following their release from custody. Established the availability of lifelong anonymity where identification would risk life.

The House of Lords set out a ten-factor test for the common-law defence of qualified privilege in defamation involving matters of public interest. The Reynolds defence protected responsible journalism that met the standard of "responsible journalism". Superseded in statute by Defamation Act 2013 s.4, but Reynolds factors remain persuasive.

The European Court of Human Rights held that ordering a journalist to disclose the source of leaked confidential information breached Article 10 ECHR. Established that source protection is a "basic condition" of press freedom.