Reynolds TD v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [1998] EWCA Civ 1172 (8 July 1998)

Reynolds TD v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [1998] EWCA Civ 1172 (8 July 1998)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's summing up contained material misdirections and factual inaccuracies, particularly in relation to the chronology of events and the plaintiff's knowledge and state of mind, which were central to the issues of justification and malice. These errors, taken cumulatively, amounted to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the verdict could not stand and a new trial was ordered.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Civ 1172
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Albert Reynolds TD; Defendant/respondent: Times Newspapers Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Alan Ruddock; Defendant/respondent: John Witherow
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Justification, Malice, Damages, Summing Up, Misdirection, Political Speech
Defamation Media Law Tort Law Libel Qualified Privilege Justification Malice Damages +3 more

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert Reynolds TD

Plaintiff/appellant

Times Newspapers Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Alan Ruddock

Defendant/respondent

John Witherow

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's summing up to the jury was materially misleading or amounted to a misdirection justifying a new trial in a libel action.
  2. 2 Whether the words published by the defendants were defamatory of the plaintiff and, if so, whether they were justified or published on an occasion of qualified privilege.
  3. 3 Whether the jury was properly directed on the issues of meaning, justification, malice, and damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's summing up contained material misdirections and factual inaccuracies, particularly in relation to the chronology of events and the plaintiff's knowledge and state of mind, which were central to the issues of justification and malice. These errors, taken cumulatively, amounted to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the verdict could not stand and a new trial was ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Verdict set aside.
  • New trial directed.