McManus & Ors v Beckham [2002] EWCA Civ 939 (4 July 2002)

McManus & Ors v Beckham [2002] EWCA Civ 939 (4 July 2002)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was wrong to strike out the paragraphs on the basis that the press articles did not repeat the slander. The claimants are entitled to rely on press coverage to establish damages if they can prove that the defendant foresaw or should have foreseen that her statements would be reported and repeated, causing further loss. The issue of causation and foreseeability is a matter for the jury, not suitable for summary disposal.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 939
Parties
Appellants/claimants: McManus & ors; Respondent/defendant: Beckham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Striking Out Paragraphs of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Slander, Causation, Remoteness of Damage, Repetition of Defamation, Novus Actus Interveniens, Damages
Defamation Tort Law Slander Causation Remoteness of Damage Repetition of Defamation Novus Actus Interveniens Damages

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McManus & ors

Appellants/claimants

Beckham

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Striking Out Paragraphs of Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants can rely on press coverage to establish loss caused by original slander
  2. 2 Whether press publication constitutes a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation
  3. 3 Whether repetition of slander in the press is a natural and probable consequence for which the defendant is liable

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was wrong to strike out the paragraphs on the basis that the press articles did not repeat the slander. The claimants are entitled to rely on press coverage to establish damages if they can prove that the defendant foresaw or should have foreseen that her statements would be reported and repeated, causing further loss. The issue of causation and foreseeability is a matter for the jury, not suitable for summary disposal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Struck-out paragraphs reinstated
  • Appellants to pay respondents £35,000 on account of costs within 14 days, remainder subject to detailed assessment