Malfeasance in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 18 Feb 1993

    The authorities cited above clearly establish that a trading corporation is entitled to sue in respect of defamatory matters which can be seen as having a tendency to damage it in the way of its business. Examples are those that go to credit such as might deter banks from lending to it, or to the conditions experienced by its employees, which might impede the recruitment of the best qualified workers, or make people reluctant to deal with it.

  • Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd and Another
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 31 Ene 2008

    (2) The hypothetical reasonable reader is not naïve but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking but he must be treated as being a man who is not avid for scandal and someone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available. (6) The hypothetical reader is taken to be representative of those who would read the publication in question.

  • Bonnick v Morris
    • Privy Council
    • 17 Jun 2002

    Responsible journalism is the point at which a fair balance is held between freedom of expression on matters of public concern and the reputations of individuals. Maintenance of this standard is in the public interest and in the interests of those whose reputations are involved. It can be regarded as the price journalists pay in return for the privilege.

  • Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (No. 2)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 05 Dic 2001

    He can have no duty to publish unless he is acting responsibly any more than the public has an interest in reading whatever may be published irresponsibly. That is why in this class of case the question whether the publisher has behaved responsibly is necessarily and intimately bound up with the question whether the defence of qualified privilege arises. Unless the publisher is acting responsibly privilege cannot arise.

  • Broome v Cassell & Company Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 23 Feb 1972

    Such actions involve a money award which may put the plaintiff in a purely financial sense in a much stronger position than he was before the wrong. Not merely can he recover the estimated sum of his past and future losses, but, in case the libel, driven underground, emerges from its lurking place at some future date, he must be able to point to a sum awarded by a jury sufficient to convince a bystander of the baselessness of the charge.

  • Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 24 May 1962

    If it refers to the same matter as the libel, it tends to prove a justification and is therefore not admissible in mitigation of damages but only in support of a plea of justification. If it refers to something different from the libel, it cannot be admitted because it is specific misconduct which it is not considered fair that you should bring up against him, see Plato Films Ltd. v. Spedel [1961] A.C. 1090.

  • Jameel and Others v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl
    • House of Lords
    • 11 Oct 2006

    But this does not mean that the editorial decisions and judgments made at the time, without the knowledge of falsity which is a benefit of hindsight, are irrelevant. Weight should ordinarily be given to the professional judgment of an editor or journalist in the absence of some indication that it was made in a casual, cavalier, slipshod or careless manner.

See all results
Legislation
  • Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act 1828
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 1828
    ...... and incurred by any such Commissioners in any Suit or Process at Law or Equity whatsoever, for or by reason of any wilful Misfeasance or Malfeasance on the Part of any such Commissioners. S-LXII . Property of Pavements, &c. vested in the Commissioners. LXII Property of Pavements, &c. vested in ......
  • Local Government Act 1929
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 1929
    ......to be held, including a requirement that an. . officer shall give such security as may be considered. necessary to guard against any. malfeasance or misappropriation of fees. . (5) In this and the next following section ‘the. responsible council’ means, as respects any registration. ......
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
  • Claw-back of UK bankers’ bonuses
    • LexBlog United Kingdom
    In the last week, it has been reported that Standard Chartered has launched “accountability reviews” to discover whether bonuses can be recovered from any employees found to be responsible for brea...
    ......Apparently some bonuses have already been clawed back by the bank and it stated that it would do so again for “clear-cut cases of malfeasance” or “gross negligence”.  The bank appears to be going for reduction of awards that haven’t yet vested (malus) before seeking to recover ......
  • News Digest 20/11/15: HBOS Report And Charity Governance Costs
    • Mondaq UK
    ...... helps to understand them and to ensure that those against whom further regulatory action may be taken are those guilty of negligence or malfeasance, rather than of poor judgement. Businesses thrive on risk, but that risk must be appropriately mitigated and subject to appropriate governance to ......
  • Lessons To Be Learned From FIFA Failure
    • Mondaq UK
    ...... a more comprehensive review, but to some degree this may be attributable to a, perhaps too complacent, assumption that allegations of malfeasance were the product of sour grapes on the part of those who had lost out in the voting process - especially the English. Back in 2011, Lord Triesman, ......
  • Italian DPA Issues Record Data Privacy Fine
    • LexBlog United Kingdom
    By Luca Tosoni and Dan Cooper On 2 February 2017, the Italian DPA (“Garante”) imposed a record fine of 5,880,000 Euros on a UK company operating in Italy for its violation of the data privacy conse...
    ...... GDPR, companies may be sanctioned with fines up to 20 million Euro or 4% of their annual worldwide turnover.  The companies’ specific malfeasance and attempts to evade Italy’s anti-money laundering regime undoubtedly also was a strong contributing factor to the ......
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT