Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 2001 |
| Date | 19 February 2001 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Robert Owen.
Defamation - defamatory material posted on website - website operators must identify maker
An internet service provider was able to obtain an order requiring website operators to disclose the identity of the source of defamatory material posted by an anonymous contributor to their discussion boards.
Mr Justice Robert Owen, sitting in the Queen's Bench Division, allowed an application under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 for an order for disclosure of the identity of a website user known as Zeddust.
Motley Fool Ltd and Interactive Investor Ltd operated websites. The websites contained discussion boards which acted as discussion forums for various companies including Totalise plc, an internet service provider.
Motley Fool had made an undertaking to its users that it was committed to protecting and respecting their privacy, and that it would not disclose any information about individual users, except as described in its privacy statement, or to comply with applicable laws or valid legal process.
Zeddust began posting defamatory comments on Motley Fool's website. After complaints by the claimant's solicitors, Zeddust was temporarily removed and then finally banned.
Totalise sought disclosure of Zeddust's identity. Motley Fool refused.
Postings began appearing on Interactive Investor's website. Interactive Investor removed the postings but refused disclosure. Totalise sought an order for disclosure.
Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides:
"No court may require a person to disclose … the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime."
Mr Patrick Moloney, QC, for Totalise; Mr Christopher Style, solicitor, for Motley Fool; Mr Richard Kiddell, solicitor, for Interactive Investor.
MR JUSTICE ROBERT OWEN said that the decision in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise CommissionersELR ((1974) 1 AC 133) that innocent parties could be compelled to disclose the identity of wrongdoers was not restricted by section 35 of the Data Protection Act 1998, that personal data would not be disclosed except by legal compulsion.
Lord Bridge of Harwich in X Ltd v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muwema v Facebook Ireland Ltd
...28 The plaintiff further relies upon the decision of the High Court in England in the case of Totalise PLC v. The Motley Fool Limited [2001] E.M.L.R. 29. The plaintiff in the proceedings was an internet service provider and the defendants operated a website containing discussion boards on ......
-
Mr. Hilali Noordeen v Mrs. Joyce Rosemary Hill and Another
...are fulfilled, it is a matter for the court's discretion whether to grant a Norwich Pharmacal. In Totalise Plc v. The Motley Fool Ltd [2001] EMLR 29 at [27], a case concerning allegedly defamatory postings on the internet, Owen J identified the following factors as relevant to the exercise ......
-
G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
...called a Norwich Pharmacal Order. An example of one made in similar circumstances to the present is in Totalise plc v Motley Fool Ltd [2001] EMLR 29. It is an order that can be made against a person who is not alleged to be a wrongdoer, but who has become caught up in the wrongdoing of othe......
- Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd
-
Table of Cases
...Spyring (1834), 1 C.M. & R. 181, 149 E. R. 1044 ............................................... 23, 289 Totalise plc v. he Motley Fool, [2001] E.M.L.R. 29 (HC), [2002] 1 WLR 1233 (CA)......................................................................... 138, 142, 148, 149, 150 Tozier and......
-
Disclosure of the Identity of an Anonymous Author
...curtails the use to which the information can be put: Isofoton S.A. v. Toronto Dominion Bank, above. See also Totalise v. Motley Fool, [2001] EMLR 29 (QBD); Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Doe, [2000] O.J. No. 3318 (S.C.J.); Sheield Wednesday Football Club Ltd. & Ors v. Hargreaves, [2007] EWHC 2375 (QB) ......