Sube & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 1961 (QB) (27 July 2018)

Sube & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 1961 (QB) (27 July 2018)

Under English law, the serious harm requirement in s 1 Defamation Act 2013 cannot be satisfied by aggregating reputational injury from multiple imputations, each individually below the threshold; only individual imputations crossing the threshold are actionable.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1961 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Arnold Mballle Sube; Claimant: Jeanne Mballle Sube; First Defendant: News Group Newspapers Ltd; Second Defendant: Express Newspapers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Post Preliminary Issues, Judgment on Legal Point and Costs
Outcome
Defamation claims dismissed; applications for specific disclosure dismissed; costs awarded to defendants.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Requirement, Cumulative Harm, Imputations, Threshold of Seriousness, Costs, Disclosure
Defamation Media Law Tort Serious Harm Requirement Cumulative Harm Imputations Threshold of Seriousness Costs +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arnold Mballle Sube

Claimant

Jeanne Mballle Sube

Claimant

News Group Newspapers Ltd

First Defendant

Express Newspapers

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Post Preliminary Issues, Judgment on Legal Point and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cumulative reputational harm from multiple non-defamatory imputations can satisfy the serious harm requirement under s 1 Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'statement' and 'imputation' under Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Application of consensus requirement and threshold of seriousness

Ratio Decidendi

Under English law, the serious harm requirement in s 1 Defamation Act 2013 cannot be satisfied by aggregating reputational injury from multiple imputations, each individually below the threshold; only individual imputations crossing the threshold are actionable.

Court Disposition

Defamation claims dismissed; applications for specific disclosure dismissed; costs awarded to defendants.

Orders

  • Claimants' defamation, malicious falsehood, and Equality Act claims struck out.
  • Claimants to pay defendants' costs, assessed if not agreed.