Turley v UNITE the Union & Anor [2019] EWHC 3547 (QB) (19 December 2019)

Turley v UNITE the Union & Anor [2019] EWHC 3547 (QB) (19 December 2019)

The Article published by the Second Defendant was defamatory of the Claimant and caused serious harm to her reputation. The Defendants failed to establish the defence of truth, as the Claimant did not knowingly or dishonestly join Unite Community in breach of the rules. The public interest defence also failed as the Defendants did not take reasonable steps to verify the truth of the allegations. The First Defendant was responsible for the defamatory statement made by its press officer. The non-libel claims were resolved by agreement with damages paid.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3547
Parties
Claimant: Anna Turley; First Defendant: Unite the Union; Second Defendant: Stephen Walker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) and Related Claims / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant on the libel claim; non-libel claims resolved by agreement.
Legal Topics
Libel, Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence, Data Protection Act 1998, Serious Harm, Truth Defence, Public Interest Defence, Abuse of Process, Damages
Defamation Media Law Data Protection Privacy Libel Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence Data Protection Act 1998 +5 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna Turley

Claimant

Unite the Union

First Defendant

Stephen Walker

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) and Related Claims / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication of the Article on The Skwawkbox defamed the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Article caused or was likely to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants could rely on the defences of truth and/or public interest

Ratio Decidendi

The Article published by the Second Defendant was defamatory of the Claimant and caused serious harm to her reputation. The Defendants failed to establish the defence of truth, as the Claimant did not knowingly or dishonestly join Unite Community in breach of the rules. The public interest defence also failed as the Defendants did not take reasonable steps to verify the truth of the allegations. The First Defendant was responsible for the defamatory statement made by its press officer. The non-libel claims were resolved by agreement with damages paid.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant on the libel claim; non-libel claims resolved by agreement.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay damages to the Claimant for libel.
  • First Defendant to pay £2,000 to the Claimant for non-libel claims as agreed.