Rachel Riley v Laura Murray

Rachel Riley v Laura Murray

The defendant's tweet was not substantially true as it misrepresented the ambiguity of the claimant's original tweet, presenting an unequivocal statement where none existed. The honest opinion defence failed because the opinion was expressly premised on a false factual assertion. The public interest defence failed as the defendant's belief in the public interest was unreasonable given the obvious ambiguity of the claimant's tweet.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Rachel Riley; Defendant/appellant: Laura Murray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Defamation Act 2013, Honest Opinion, Truth Defence, Public Interest Defence
Defamation Media Law Libel Defamation Act 2013 Honest Opinion Truth Defence Public Interest Defence

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rachel Riley

Claimant/respondent

Laura Murray

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's tweet was substantially true under section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's tweet constituted honest opinion under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's tweet was published on a matter of public interest under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's tweet was not substantially true as it misrepresented the ambiguity of the claimant's original tweet, presenting an unequivocal statement where none existed. The honest opinion defence failed because the opinion was expressly premised on a false factual assertion. The public interest defence failed as the defendant's belief in the public interest was unreasonable given the obvious ambiguity of the claimant's tweet.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant
  • Damages of £10,000 awarded to the claimant