Goldsmith and Another v Bhoyrul and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1997 |
| Date | 1997 |
| Year | 1997 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Defamation - Parties - Political party - Publication insinuating political party lied to electorate - Whether political party entitled to maintain action for defamation
The first plaintiff was the founder of the second plaintiff, which, although incorporated as a company limited by guarantee, operated as a political party. The plaintiffs brought an action for defamation against the defendants in respect of a newspaper article which, the plaintiffs claimed, insinuated that they had lied to the electorate.
On an application by the defendants to strike out the second plaintiff's claim on the ground that a political party could not sue in defamation:—
Held, granting the application, that since it was of the highest public importance that a democratically electable political party should be open to uninhibited public criticism, the principle that in a free and democratic society it was contrary to the public interest to permit those who held office in government or were responsible for public administration to sue in defamation applied to a political party putting itself forward for office or to govern; and that, accordingly, the claim by the second plaintiff would be struck out (post, p. 438F–H).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [
Hector v. Attorney-General of Antigua and Barbuda [
Mapp v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. [
The following additional cases, although not cited, were referred to in the skeleton arguments:
Argus Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. v. Inkatha Freedom Party,
British Coal Corporation v. National Union of Mineworkers (unreported), 28 June 1996, French J.
Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [
English and Scottish Co-operative Properties Mortgage and Investment Society Ltd. v. Odhams Press Ltd. [
Fullam v. Newcastle Chronicle and Journal Ltd. [
Gillick v. British Broadcasting Corporation [
Holomisa v. Argus Newspapers Ltd.,
Lingens v. Austria (
National Union of General and Municipal Workers v. Gillian [
Thorgeirson v. Iceland (
Application
By a writ dated 27 March 1997 the plaintiffs, Sir James Goldsmith and the Referendum Party (a company limited by guarantee), claimed (1) damages for libel contained in an article entitled “Goldsmith looks for ‘dignified exit’ from election race,” which appeared in the “Sunday Business” on 23 March 1997 published by the defendants, Anil Bhoyrul and David Rydell, respectively a journalist employed by and the editor of the newspaper published by the third defendant, Sunday Business Newspapers Ltd.; and (2) an injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants or agents from further publishing or causing to be published the same or any similar libels of the plaintiffs.
By their statement of claim the plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, (i) that the first plaintiff was a well known businessman and founder of the second plaintiff, a company whose purpose was to obtain a full public debate on Britain's relationship with Europe followed by a fair referendum on the issue of Britain's future in Europe; (ii) that in the 23 March 1997 issue of “Sunday Business” the first defendant wrote and published, and the second and third defendants published or caused to be published, of and concerning the plaintiffs defamatory words meaning that the plaintiffs had lied to and/or misled the electorate; (iii) that by reason of the publication of the words complained of the first plaintiff had been seriously injured in his reputation and feelings, and the second plaintiff had suffered loss and damage.
By a summons dated 30 April 1997 the defendants applied for an order that (i) the question of whether the words complained of were capable of bearing the meanings pleaded by the plaintiffs be determined under
The application was heard in chambers but judgment was given by Buckley J. in open court.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
David Price, solicitor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lim Lip Eng v Ong Ka Chuan (as a public officer of a society registered as Malaysian Chinese Association)
- Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan bin Kassim and another appeal
- Chong Chieng Jen v Government of State of Sarawak and Another
-
LIM GUAN ENG vs RUSLAN BIN KASSIM
...to protect his reputation (see Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Limited [1944] AC 116; Goldsmith and anotherv Bhoyrul and Others [1998] QB 459: Lee Hsien v Singapore Democratic Party and others [2006] SGHC 220 (“Lee Hsien Loong v SDP’)). [35] SDP, The last case cited in the foregoing sup......
-
Freedom of Speech in Australian Law: A Delicate Plant.
...In Australia, see Ballina Shire Council v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680. It has been extended to political parties: Goldsmith v Bhoyrul [1997] 4 All ER 268. Loveland, above n 12, 117-25 examines the (189) Eg, Alastair Mullis and Donal Nolan, `Tort' [1997] All England Reports Annual Review 49......
-
Legal Intimidation: A SLAPP in the Face of Democracy.
...In Australia, see Ballina Shire Council v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680. It has been extended to political parties: Goldsmith v Bhoyrul [1997] 4 All ER 268. Loveland, above n 12, 117-25 examines the (189) Eg, Alastair Mullis and Donal Nolan, `Tort' [1997] All England Reports Annual Review 49......
-
Political Libels: A Comparative Study.
...In Australia, see Ballina Shire Council v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680. It has been extended to political parties: Goldsmith v Bhoyrul [1997] 4 All ER 268. Loveland, above n 12, 117-25 examines the (189) Eg, Alastair Mullis and Donal Nolan, `Tort' [1997] All England Reports Annual Review 49......
-
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats: privacy, injunctions and possums: an analysis of the high court's decision.
...v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680, following Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534. (87) Goldsmith v Bhoyrul [1998] QB 459 (if applied in (88) And in other areas of law which serve to protect privacy, such as trespass, passing off and nuisance. (89) This point was reco......