Nigel Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [1995] EWCA Civ 45 (28 July 1995)

Nigel Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [1995] EWCA Civ 45 (28 July 1995)

The apology published by the defendants was not protected by qualified privilege because, as the original wrongdoers, the defendants had no duty or interest justifying the inclusion of defamatory matter about the plaintiff in the apology. The privilege available to the victim of the original defamation (and their solicitors) did not extend derivatively to the newspaper. However, the solicitors acting for the defamed party were protected by qualified privilege as their actions were warranted by the occasion and not actuated by malice.

Citation
[1995] EWCA Civ 45
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Nigel Watts; Defendant/appellant: Times Newspapers Limited; Defendant/appellant: Andrew Neil; Defendant/appellant: Richard Palmer; Third Party: Schilling & Lom (A firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeals From High Court Preliminary Issue and Third Party Proceedings
Outcome
Defendants' appeal dismissed; Third party (Schilling & Lom) appeal allowed; Third party proceedings struck out.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Libel, Apology in Defamation, Joint Tortfeasor Liability
Defamation Media Law Tort Qualified Privilege Libel Apology in Defamation Joint Tortfeasor Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Watts

Plaintiff/respondent

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant/appellant

Andrew Neil

Defendant/appellant

Richard Palmer

Defendant/appellant

Schilling & Lom (A firm)

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeals From High Court Preliminary Issue and Third Party Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an apology published by a newspaper that is itself defamatory is protected by qualified privilege at common law
  2. 2 Whether a solicitor acting for a defamed client in procuring publication of an apology is jointly liable as a tortfeasor
  3. 3 Whether the occasion of publication of an apology is privileged for both the original publisher and the party seeking the apology

Ratio Decidendi

The apology published by the defendants was not protected by qualified privilege because, as the original wrongdoers, the defendants had no duty or interest justifying the inclusion of defamatory matter about the plaintiff in the apology. The privilege available to the victim of the original defamation (and their solicitors) did not extend derivatively to the newspaper. However, the solicitors acting for the defamed party were protected by qualified privilege as their actions were warranted by the occasion and not actuated by malice.

Court Disposition

Defendants' appeal dismissed; Third party (Schilling & Lom) appeal allowed; Third party proceedings struck out.

Orders

  • Defendants' appeal against the High Court's refusal of qualified privilege dismissed.
  • Third party Schilling & Lom's appeal allowed; order striking out third party proceedings made.