Banks v Cadwalladr (Rev1) [2023] EWCA Civ 219 (28 February 2023)

Banks v Cadwalladr (Rev1) [2023] EWCA Civ 219 (28 February 2023)

The serious harm requirement under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 must be satisfied in respect of the actionable publication(s) after the public interest defence ceases to apply; harm caused by earlier lawful publication is irrelevant. The trial judge erred in her reasoning regarding the 'echo chamber' and the relevance of publishees' opinions, but was correct in her approach to scale. The TED Talk caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation in the relevant period, but the Tweet did not.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 219
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Arron Banks; Defendant/respondent: Carole Cadwalladr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal (libel/defamation) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; claim in respect of TED Talk succeeds, claim in respect of Tweet dismissed.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Requirement, Public Interest Defence, Continuing Publication, Assessment of Reputational Harm, Section 1 and Section 4 Defamation Act 2013
Defamation Media Law Tort Serious Harm Requirement Public Interest Defence Continuing Publication Assessment of Reputational Harm Section 1 and Section 4 Defamation Act 2013

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arron Banks

Claimant/appellant

Carole Cadwalladr

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (libel/defamation) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the serious harm requirement under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 must be reassessed after the public interest defence falls away in cases of continuing publication
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in her approach to assessing serious harm, specifically regarding scale of publication, 'echo chamber' reasoning, and the relevance of publishees' opinions
  3. 3 Whether the judge's errors warranted reversal of her decision to dismiss the claims

Ratio Decidendi

The serious harm requirement under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 must be satisfied in respect of the actionable publication(s) after the public interest defence ceases to apply; harm caused by earlier lawful publication is irrelevant. The trial judge erred in her reasoning regarding the 'echo chamber' and the relevance of publishees' opinions, but was correct in her approach to scale. The TED Talk caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation in the relevant period, but the Tweet did not.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; claim in respect of TED Talk succeeds, claim in respect of Tweet dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for claimant in respect of TED Talk for publication after 29 April 2020; damages to be assessed.
  • Claim in respect of Tweet dismissed.