Plummer v Charman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE UPJOHN,THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS |
| Judgment Date | 17 October 1962 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1962] EWCA Civ J1017-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 17 October 1962 |
[1962] EWCA Civ J1017-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From Mr. Justice Helford Stevenson
The Master of The Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Upjohn and
Lord Justice Dipiock
that that means that if the candidate himself publishes a statement, or anyone publishes a statement on his behalf, to the electors in support of his candidature, than it is no longer a privileged occasion. The result is that in the ordinary way the only defences open to a person who makes an election address and puts it out to the electors is either that the words were true or that they were fair comment on a matter of public interest. I do not exclude the possibility that there might be a case where a person might conceivably say: "I am an elector; I made a communication to the other electors on a matter of common interest to us in such circumstances that It is privileged", and it is not caught by section 10. I do not exclude the possibility of such a case, but in all ordinary circumstances an election address published by or on behalf of a candidate is no longer the subject of qualified privilege. The only defences open, if defamatory statements are contained in it, are justification or fair comment on a matter of public interest.
Now, in the face of Section 10, it seems to me that this pleading of qualified privilege cannot stand. It is said by Mr Webb that there are sufficient circumstances in this case so as to take it out of Section 10. He seeks to put In a re-amended defence in which he says that Mr Charman himself has a shop in this electoral area, the third defendant, Mr Stanton, resides in it and Mr Simpson formerly resided in it. But it seems to me those statements do not carry the matter any further. He does not plead, even in this proposed re-amended defence, anywhere near an exceptional case such as I have envisaged where there would be some duty or interest outside and other than the election address. In these circum-stances it seems to me it would be wrong to allow this amendment now. It would be contrary to law to say there was any qualified privilege in this case.
Apart from this matter of law, I should have thought itplain that at this stage – the application was only made when the case was in the list for trial and about to coma on for trial – It was far too late to allow an amendment of this kind, especially when it is, as I have said, so unfounded in law.
I think, therefore, the Judgment of Mr Justice Melford Stevenson was right and I would dismiss the appeal.
I agree. prima facie the plea which Is now sought to be raised is plainly barred by Section 10 of the Defamation Act 1952. I need not read the section as it has already been read by my Lord. The alleged libellous statement is published on behalf of a candidate – in this case three candidates – and in an election to a local authority, and it would appear to be material to a question in issue in this election. The learned Judge came to a, perfectly correct conclusion upon that matter and it seems to me a perfectly plain case.
Mr Webb, however, has argued that you may have a case – I would think a somewhat theoretical one – whereby the statement, although contained in an election address, may be the subject of some qualified privilege because, quite independently of its being the occasion of an election or being contained in an election address, the person who has made it was under a public or private duty, legal or moral, in matters where his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Culnane v Morris and Another
...upon me according to familiar principles of stare decisis. 18 It would seem to be clear from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Plummer v Charman [1962] 1 WLR 1469 that the members of that court considered that its effect was to impose significant restrictions upon a candidate's scope f......
-
Jeyaretnam JB v Lee Kuan Yew
...(folld) Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 (refd) McCarey v Associated Newspapers [1964] 3 All ER 947 (refd) Plummer v Charman [1962] 1 WLR 1469 (folld) R v Flowers (1880) 44 JP 377 (folld) Turner v MGM Pictures Ltd [1950] 1 All ER 449 (folld) Defamation Act (Cap 32, 1970 Rev Ed) ss ......
-
Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. et al., (1999) 250 N.R. 1 (HL)
...448 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 112]. Duncombe v. Daniell (1837), 8 C. & P. 222, refd to. [paras. 114, 143]. Plummer v. Charman, [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1469 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Lang v. Willis (1934), 52 C.L.R. 637, refd to. [para. 114]. Douglas v. Tucker, [1952] 1 D.L.R. 657 (S.C.C.), refd to.......
-
Miller v Bull & Others
...Culnane v Morris [2005] EWHC 2438 (QB); [2006] 1 WLR 2880. In that case Eady J had to consider the decision of the Court of Appeal in Plummer v Charman [1962] 1 WLR 1469. The Court of Appeal had decided that s.10 of the Defamation Act 1952 had the effect that qualified privilege was not a......