I'm not sure if Laura's point follows. If a local authority libels me I can sue it, but it doesn't follow that the authority should be able to sue me if I traduce it: see the Derbyshire case itself. If that's right, why a different rule for pressure groups?

My own take on this is that I personally wouldn't be unhappy about barring not-for-profit organisations from suing for libel entirely (with the possible exception of organisations like golf clubs existing for the benefit of their members). It's one thing to subject political speech to libel laws as regards individuals (in 1952, perhaps regrettably, we specifically rejected the NZ privilege solution in s.10 of the Defamation Act of that year). But a potential liability to a pressure group would have an enormously chilling effect.

Even if we allow such groups to sue for libel, it seems to me that any liability ought to be strictly limited to proved financial loss. Damages at large for organisations that don't exist to make money on account of injury to some ethereal corporate sense of well-being or justification don't seem to safeguard any interest whatever worth protecting. But I may very well be missing something.

Andrew

This action is against Nigel Farage personally. According to Goldsmith v. Bhoyrul [1998] 2 WLR 435 (QB), Derbyshire only bars political parties from suing in defamation, not individual politicians, and so Goldsmith, the then leader of UKIP, was allowed to sue his critic. Therefore the symmetry is the other way around, Andrew: if an individual politician can sue his critics in defamation, so should those whom he attacks be able to sue.

 

Laura

 

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Laura Hoyano

Faculty of Law, University of Oxford

Senior Research Fellow, Wadham College, Oxford

Barrister & Fellow of Middle Temple

Laura.hoyano@law.ox.ac.uk

Direct line: (44) (0)1865 277 986

Postal address:  Wadham College, Oxford, OX1 3PN, UK

 

From: Barry Allan [mailto:barry.allan@otago.ac.nz]
Sent: 24 April 2017 01:46
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re: defamation and politics

 

Rather than create odd lines in the sand, why not do as New Zealand has done and recognise a qualified privilege for political commentary, if that is what you want to protect? By making it about the plaintiff rather than the communication, questions arise about what other groups will be prevented for suing by virtue of the nature of the group. If it is a political group, would they be disentitled from suing for non political commentary? I see also that Hope not Hate is a charity, so they might even escape the classification of being a political group.

Barry Allan

On 4/23/2017 10:37 PM, Andrew Tettenborn wrote:

An interesting defamation case reported in today's UK media:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/22/hope-not-hate-suing-nigel-farage-100k-libel-claim-ukip-leader

Essentially a political organisation is suing for large sums in general libel damages in respect of a statement about its activities (in this case Hope not Hate is suing Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party for a suggestion that it pursues violent and undemocratic means to power).

Does anyone share my concern that this ought to be regarded as raising the same issue as Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] A.C. 534? If it's necessary to prevent public authorities from suing corporately for defamation in order to protect robust free speech, then my first reaction is that this ought to apply a fortiori to political pressure-groups.

Andrew

 

--