McGrath & Anor v Dawkins & Ors (Rev 1) [2012] EWHC B3 (QB) (30 March 2012)

McGrath & Anor v Dawkins & Ors (Rev 1) [2012] EWHC B3 (QB) (30 March 2012)

Amazon was entitled to rely on the statutory defence under Reg. 19 of the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002, as the claimant failed to provide sufficient notice of unlawful content and Amazon acted expeditiously to remove content once notified. The claim against Amazon was struck out. The applications for summary judgment by the First and Second Defendants (Dawkins and the Foundation) failed on the facts, as there were triable issues regarding responsibility for publication. The issue of defamatory meaning required further consideration at trial for the remaining defendants.

Citation
[2012] EWHC B3 (QB)
Parties
First Claimant: Christopher Anthony McGrath; Second Claimant: MCG Productions Limited; First Defendant: Professor Richard Dawkins; Second Defendant: The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science; Third Defendant: Amazon EU SARL (trading as Amazon.co.uk); Fourth Defendant: Vaughan John Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Interim Applications in Internet Libel Action / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Claim against Amazon struck out; summary judgment refused for Dawkins and the Foundation; issues of meaning and liability to proceed to trial for remaining defendants.
Legal Topics
Liability of Website Operators, Defamatory Meaning, Statutory Defences for Isps, Responsibility for Publication, Abuse of Process
Defamation Internet Law Tort Liability of Website Operators Defamatory Meaning Statutory Defences for Isps Responsibility for Publication Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Anthony McGrath

First Claimant

MCG Productions Limited

Second Claimant

Professor Richard Dawkins

First Defendant

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

Second Defendant

Amazon EU SARL (trading as Amazon.co.uk)

Third Defendant

Vaughan John Jones

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Applications in Internet Libel Action / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether website operators (including Amazon and the Dawkins Foundation) are liable for defamatory statements posted by users
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing defamatory meanings as pleaded
  3. 3 Whether statutory defences under s.1 Defamation Act 1996 and Reg. 19 Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 apply to Amazon

Ratio Decidendi

Amazon was entitled to rely on the statutory defence under Reg. 19 of the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002, as the claimant failed to provide sufficient notice of unlawful content and Amazon acted expeditiously to remove content once notified. The claim against Amazon was struck out. The applications for summary judgment by the First and Second Defendants (Dawkins and the Foundation) failed on the facts, as there were triable issues regarding responsibility for publication. The issue of defamatory meaning required further consideration at trial for the remaining defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim against Amazon struck out; summary judgment refused for Dawkins and the Foundation; issues of meaning and liability to proceed to trial for remaining defendants.

Orders

  • Claim against Third Defendant (Amazon) struck out
  • Summary judgment refused for First and Second Defendants (Dawkins and the Foundation)