Hawrami v Journalism Development Network Inc & Ors [2024] EWHC 2194 (KB) (23 August 2024)

Hawrami v Journalism Development Network Inc & Ors [2024] EWHC 2194 (KB) (23 August 2024)

The Article is a hybrid publication, and only certain passages are sufficiently apparent as reports of the Excalibur judgment or proceedings to attract qualified privilege under s.15 of the Defamation Act 1996. However, the Article as a whole is not a fair and accurate report of the Excalibur judgment, and the passages for which privilege is claimed are not protected where they are not sufficiently sourced or are unfair or inaccurate. The Article is defamatory of the claimant at common law in its natural and ordinary meaning.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2194 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Dr Ashti Hawrami; First Defendant: Journalism Development Network, Inc.; Second Defendant: Daniel Balint-Kurti; Third Defendant: William Jordan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Preliminary Issues Trial
Outcome
Qualified privilege under s.15 of the Defamation Act 1996 applies only to certain passages of the Article; the Article is defamatory of the claimant at common law.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Fair and Accurate Report, Public Interest, Meaning in Defamation, Hybrid Publication, Repetition Rule
Defamation Media Law Qualified Privilege Fair and Accurate Report Public Interest Meaning in Defamation Hybrid Publication Repetition Rule

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Ashti Hawrami

Claimant

Journalism Development Network, Inc.

First Defendant

Daniel Balint-Kurti

Second Defendant

William Jordan

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / Preliminary Issues Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the Article are protected by qualified privilege under s.15 of the Defamation Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Article is defamatory of the claimant at common law
  3. 3 The natural and ordinary meaning of the Article

Ratio Decidendi

The Article is a hybrid publication, and only certain passages are sufficiently apparent as reports of the Excalibur judgment or proceedings to attract qualified privilege under s.15 of the Defamation Act 1996. However, the Article as a whole is not a fair and accurate report of the Excalibur judgment, and the passages for which privilege is claimed are not protected where they are not sufficiently sourced or are unfair or inaccurate. The Article is defamatory of the claimant at common law in its natural and ordinary meaning.

Court Disposition

Qualified privilege under s.15 of the Defamation Act 1996 applies only to certain passages of the Article; the Article is defamatory of the claimant at common law.

Orders

  • The natural and ordinary meaning of the Article is to be determined as set out in the judgment.
  • Only the specified passages attract qualified privilege; other passages do not.