Defamation Causation in UK Law

In a defamation case where there has been re-publication the question whether or not there has been a breach in the chain of causation inevitably arises but such cases are not in a special category related to defamation actions but are examples of the problem and will fall to be decided on general principles and in the light of their own facts as established.

Mr. Gray urged that to admit the possibility of such a claim would be contrary to public policy and threaten freedom of expression. But the law would part company with the realities of life if it held that the damage caused by publication of a libel began and ended with publication to the original publishee. Defamatory statements are objectionable not least because of their propensity to percolate through underground channels and contaiminate hidden springs.

Usually, in fairness to a defendant, such effects must be discounted or ignored for lack of proof. But here, where the further publications (although not republications) are provable and are said to have been foreseeable, natural, provable and perhaps even intentional results of the publication sued upon, I see no reason in logic or policy why those effects need be ignored if the factual premises can be established.

The fourth issue of law is the extent to which the principle in Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1964] AC 371 obviates any enquiry into the causation of the Claimants' various losses. This is a point which arose in oral argument and was not addressed in any detail in the skeleton arguments. It attracted a wave of further authority and helpful submissions from all Counsel, Mr Eardley in particular.

This issue arises because the Defendants say that the claims for special damage in particular all arise out of events which pre-date the first publication in this case, which was in October 2019. So, as a matter of causation it is contended that the Claimants cannot have suffered “serious harm”, or (in the case of the corporate Claimants) “serious financial loss” which equates to “serious harm”.

The case was concerned with what may be described (but I hope the term is not misunderstood) as “general damage to reputation” in connection with a number of publications of substantially the same libel at more or less the same time. The legal policy behind the principle is that if a claimant had to identify which particular publication was causative or apportion the harm as between various publications each with an apparently similar causative impact he could not possibly do so.

Thus, if a claimant says that X happened because of publication Y, or if it is clear to the court that the reason X happened was because of publication Y, it is no use the claimant suing publisher Z in respect of that consequence.