Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1805 (05 December 2001)

Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1805 (05 December 2001)

The judge at first instance applied the wrong test for the duty to publish under qualified privilege, setting the standard too high by requiring that the publisher would be open to legitimate criticism if he failed to publish. The correct standard is responsible journalism as articulated in Reynolds. The matter was remitted for reconsideration applying the correct standard. The single publication rule does not apply to internet publication in English law; each access is a separate publication. Damages for Russian publication are recoverable under Russian law. Summary disposal under s.8 Defamation Act 1996 is not available post-judgment.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1805
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Dr Grigori Loutchansky; Defendant/appellant: The Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted for reconsideration applying the correct standard for qualified privilege; other appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Internet Publication, Limitation Periods, Summary Disposal, Damages Under Foreign Law
Defamation Media Law Tort Law Limitation Law Qualified Privilege Internet Publication Limitation Periods Summary Disposal +1 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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Grigori Loutchansky

Claimant/respondent

The Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applied to the publication of defamatory articles to the world at large under Reynolds v Times Newspapers principles
  2. 2 Whether the single publication rule should apply to internet publication for limitation purposes
  3. 3 Whether general damages for Russian publication are recoverable under Russian law

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance applied the wrong test for the duty to publish under qualified privilege, setting the standard too high by requiring that the publisher would be open to legitimate criticism if he failed to publish. The correct standard is responsible journalism as articulated in Reynolds. The matter was remitted for reconsideration applying the correct standard. The single publication rule does not apply to internet publication in English law; each access is a separate publication. Damages for Russian publication are recoverable under Russian law. Summary disposal under s.8 Defamation Act 1996 is not available post-judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted for reconsideration applying the correct standard for qualified privilege; other appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Remit to Gray J for reconsideration of qualified privilege applying the responsible journalism standard.
  • Refusal to apply single publication rule to internet publication affirmed.