Arron Banks v Carole Cadwalladr

Arron Banks v Carole Cadwalladr

A statement is defamatory only if and to the extent that its publication causes serious harm to reputation or is likely to do so; actionable harm must be assessed for each relevant period of publication, especially where the public interest defence falls away. The judge erred in relying on unsupported findings about 'echo chamber' and publishees' opinions, and the inference of serious harm from Phase Two publication of the TED Talk was inevitable given the gravity and scale of the allegation.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Arron Banks; Defendant/respondent: Carole Cadwalladr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; claim in respect of TED Talk after 29 April 2020 succeeds; claim in respect of Tweet dismissed.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Requirement, Public Interest Defence, Continuing Publication, Assessment of Damages, Freedom of Expression, Reputation
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Serious Harm Requirement Public Interest Defence Continuing Publication Assessment of Damages Freedom of Expression +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arron Banks

Claimant/appellant

Carole Cadwalladr

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation and application of section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Relationship between serious harm requirement and public interest defence
  3. 3 Assessment of serious harm in continuing publication

Ratio Decidendi

A statement is defamatory only if and to the extent that its publication causes serious harm to reputation or is likely to do so; actionable harm must be assessed for each relevant period of publication, especially where the public interest defence falls away. The judge erred in relying on unsupported findings about 'echo chamber' and publishees' opinions, and the inference of serious harm from Phase Two publication of the TED Talk was inevitable given the gravity and scale of the allegation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; claim in respect of TED Talk after 29 April 2020 succeeds; claim in respect of Tweet dismissed.

Orders

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