header-logo header-logo

Libel & slander

24 July 2015
Issue: 7662 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Starr v Ward [2015] EWHC 1987 (QB), [2015] All ER (D) 123 (Jul)

The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for slander and libel for words spoken and subsequently broadcast on the BBC and ITV, and an eBook she published. The Queen’s Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the claim concerning the BBC was time-barred and the defendant was not a co-publisher. Although the claim as to ITV was actionable without proof of special loss, the defendant’s account had been true. With respect to the eBook, justification had been established, although the claimant had not been identified and the claim was an abuse of process.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll