Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 432 (30 April 2008)

Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 432 (30 April 2008)

The privileged passages of the article were entitled to qualified privilege as fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings. However, the judge erred in applying the repetition rule and single meaning rule to the whole article, including privileged passages. The correct approach is that the privileged passages provide context only, and the repetition rule does not apply to them. The article, properly construed, bore a Chase level 2 meaning: there were reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Curistan had been associated with IRA dirty money and involved in financial malpractice.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 432
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Peter Curistan; Respondent/appellant: Times Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Both appeals allowed in part; judge's ruling on privilege upheld, but meaning found to be Chase level 2, not Chase level 1.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Repetition Rule, Single Meaning Rule, Reporting of Parliamentary Proceedings, Libel, Meaning in Defamation, Adoption of Statements, Fair and Accurate Reporting
Defamation Media Law Tort Qualified Privilege Repetition Rule Single Meaning Rule Reporting of Parliamentary Proceedings Libel +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Curistan

Appellant/respondent

Times Newspapers Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reporting privilege was available for parts of the article quoting parliamentary proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the article bore a meaning that Mr Curistan was guilty of IRA money laundering and financial malpractice (Chase level 1) or that there were reasonable grounds to suspect such conduct (Chase level 2)
  3. 3 Whether the repetition rule and single meaning rule applied to the article as a whole, including privileged passages

Ratio Decidendi

The privileged passages of the article were entitled to qualified privilege as fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings. However, the judge erred in applying the repetition rule and single meaning rule to the whole article, including privileged passages. The correct approach is that the privileged passages provide context only, and the repetition rule does not apply to them. The article, properly construed, bore a Chase level 2 meaning: there were reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Curistan had been associated with IRA dirty money and involved in financial malpractice.

Court Disposition

Both appeals allowed in part; judge's ruling on privilege upheld, but meaning found to be Chase level 2, not Chase level 1.

Orders

  • Privileged passages of the article are protected by qualified privilege.
  • Meaning of the article is that there were reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Curistan had been associated with IRA dirty money and involved in financial malpractice (Chase level 2).