Jameel & Anor v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No.2)

Jameel & Anor v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (No.2)

The Court of Appeal held that the defence of qualified privilege (Reynolds privilege) did not apply because the publishers failed to act as responsible journalists, notably by not giving the claimants adequate opportunity to comment and by publishing names unnecessarily. The presumption of falsity and damage remain part of English law and are not incompatible with Article 10 ECHR. Corporate claimants are not required to prove special damage to succeed in libel. The judge's directions to the jury were not materially misleading and any alleged misdirection did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Jameel & Anr; Defendant / Appellant: Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL (No.2)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (libel) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege (reynolds Privilege), Presumption of Falsity, Presumption of Damage, Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr), Corporate Reputation, Jury Directions, Responsible Journalism
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Qualified Privilege (reynolds Privilege) Presumption of Falsity Presumption of Damage Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr) Corporate Reputation +2 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jameel & Anr

Claimant / Respondent

Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL (No.2)

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (libel) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of qualified privilege (Reynolds privilege) applied to the publication in question
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of falsity and presumption of damage are compatible with Article 10 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the judge misdirected the jury regarding the presumption of falsity

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the defence of qualified privilege (Reynolds privilege) did not apply because the publishers failed to act as responsible journalists, notably by not giving the claimants adequate opportunity to comment and by publishing names unnecessarily. The presumption of falsity and damage remain part of English law and are not incompatible with Article 10 ECHR. Corporate claimants are not required to prove special damage to succeed in libel. The judge's directions to the jury were not materially misleading and any alleged misdirection did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal on misdirection refused
  • Appeal against the judge's ruling on presumption of damage dismissed