Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

The law relating to defamation

Defamation, unlawful under the common law, occurs when there is publication to a third party of words or matters containing an untrue imputation against the reputation of individuals, companies or firms which serves to undermine that reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of society generally, by exposing the victim to hatred, contempt or ridicule.

There are two “types” of defamation: libel and slander. Libel is the publication of a defamatory statement in permanent form (i.e. on television, in a newspaper, on the internet etc.). Slander is the publication of a defamatory statement in a less permanent form (generally by word of mouth). In slander claims the Claimant must show proof of damage that has been caused whereas in libel the Claimant simply has to show that the libellous statement was made (i.e. that the statement “could” have caused damage).

A Claimant (the person defamed) must therefore meet the following three elements to succeed in a claim for defamation:

  1. Was a defamatory statement made?
  2. Did this defamatory statement refer to the Claimant?
  3. Was this defamatory statement which referred to the Claimant published?

If the Claimant succeeds in proving on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant (the person doing the defaming) has five potential defences:

  • Consent: that the Claimant consented to the publication of the statement (rarely successful)
  • Truth: that what they said was true
  • Fair comment: that the comment was a matter of legitimate public interest and objectively fair
  • Qualified privilege:  successful where the Defendant has a legal, moral or social duty to communicate and the reader has a legitimate interest in the communication (i.e. a solicitor-client letter)
  • Absolute privilege: absolute defence but extremely limited (i.e. a statement in Parliament would count as an absolutely privileged statement)

The facts in Citation PLC v Ellis Whittam Ltd

Having had a brief look at the law relating to defamation claims, we’ll now take a look at the facts in the case at hand – Citation PLC v Ellis Whittam Ltd.

Both firms provide legal services to clients and are in competition. The Claimant (Citation PLC) alleged that a representative of the Defendant (Ellis Whittam Ltd) made defamatory statements to a potential client of the Claimant.

The alleged words spoken were:

  • “Citation’s guarantee is not what they say it is… because Citation is self-insured and not insured through a broker”
  • “[Citation] is unable to pay out on claims”; and (among others)
  • “Citation does not have any qualified lawyers working for the company”

These allegations were communicated to Citation PLC and they subsequently issued a claim for defamation.

The main substantive issues in the claim related to whether the alleged defamatory statement had been published to a third party and whether the statement itself was true. The main procedural issue was whether there were reasonable grounds for bringing the claim as there was no real or substantial tort. The Claimant was seeking an injunction against the Defendant making further such comments.

The High Court’s judgment in the defamation case

The High Court did not make a judgment on whether the statement was defamatory or whether the alleged defamatory statement had been communicated to a third party. The Court refrained from doing so as it believed that the claim itself was an abuse of process – it felt that the seeking on an injunction by the Claimant was an unsuitable remedy in the circumstances.

Our thoughts on Citation PLC v Ellis Whittam Ltd

This is an interesting case on defamation. It (clearly) revolves mainly around the issue of the appropriate remedy that should and can be pursued in the courts in claims involving defamation. As the Claimant had not obviously suffered damage from the alleged slander (and the Court commented on the difficulty of doing so) the Court believed that the remedy of an injunction was an unsuitable one.

This case illustrates that both individuals and companies must be careful about what statements they make in public. Potentially defamatory statements can, such as in the present case, result in an action for defamation in the courts.

UPDATE: “We understand that Citation will be seeking to appeal the High Court Judgment”

Tagged with →  

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.76 Average

176 Reviews

Mohamed A

Super helpful and efficient, trustworthy service

Posted 1 day ago

Anonymous

efficient, responsive and effective

Posted 1 day ago

Andrew B

Very good service

Posted 1 day ago

Anonymous

Excellent service, compassionate and a good outcome

Posted 2 days ago

Anonymous

I had an employment issue which required legal advice. Chris was very supportive and knowledgeable, resulting in an optimum resolution in my favour. Would definitely recommend.

Posted 1 week ago

David M

Very professional and first-rate advice. I would use again. With thanks,

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Got the job done swiftly without going too much in to detail.

Posted 1 week ago

Derek W

Redmans dealt with my case very efficiently and I was happy with the outcome.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Timely professional advice!

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Very good service

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

I was in contact with Chris and then worked with Caroline on an employment matter. I was very pleased with the service and professionalism throughout, and came away with satisfied with the outcome. Would happily recommend.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Nikki

Received advice re employment law. Chris was very helpful and advised accordingly. Would happily recommend them and if ever I need help again, will not think twice before using them.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Samantha K

Absolutely brilliant thank you. Caroline Lewis is a legend

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

The legal advice was clear and helpful.

Posted 2 months ago

Davinder P

Good Service

Posted 2 months ago

Adrian V

I was using Redmans services for a Settlement Agreement. Very quick and professional service. The outcome was favourable and I was very pleased with the amendments and results. Pretty glad to recommend them for any type of legal advice.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very responsive, efficient, clear and supportive. Thank you! Highly recommend.

Posted 2 months ago

Tiago S

Chris was always prompt to help me with legal matters that are beyond my comprehension and very helpful leasing with my former employer. I would recommend Redmans Solicitors to everyone who needs help.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Fast and professional advice tailored to what was needed. Thanks for your help Chris Hadrill and team.

Posted 2 months ago

Peter S

Really pleased with the outcome and the advice I had from Chris and Sacha.

Posted 2 months ago

Harika A

Redmans solicitor's helped me with my settlement agreement, Chris has been very helpful throughout the process.He was very prompt in his responses and made my settlement look simple.Special thanks to Caroline for her efficient communication, thorough explaination of contract terminology and negotiations.I highly reccommend Redmans solicitors for anyone seeking employment related legal help.

Posted 2 months ago