O'Shea v. MGN Ltd and others [2001] EWHC QB 425 (4th May, 2001)

O'Shea v. MGN Ltd and others [2001] EWHC QB 425 (4th May, 2001)

The strict liability principle in defamation does not extend to cases where the defamatory material is a photograph of another person who is merely a 'look-alike' of the claimant. To do so would be a disproportionate and unjustifiable interference with freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR, as there is no pressing social need for such an extension. The claimant's case has no realistic prospect of success as a matter of law.

Citation
[2001] EWHC QB 425
Parties
Claimant: Kerry O'Shea; First Defendant: MGN Ltd; Second Defendant: Free4Internet.Net Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Defamation Claim (libel) / Judgment on Legal Sufficiency/strike Out Application
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Strict Liability in Defamation, Reference/identification in Libel, Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr), Look Alike Photographs and Defamation, Offer of Amends Procedure

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kerry O'Shea

Claimant

MGN Ltd

First Defendant

Free4Internet.Net Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Claim (libel) / Judgment on Legal Sufficiency/strike Out Application

  1. 1 Whether a claimant can succeed in libel where the defamatory material is a photograph of another person who is a 'look-alike' of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the strict liability principle in defamation applies to 'look-alike' situations
  3. 3 Whether application of strict liability in such cases is compatible with Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The strict liability principle in defamation does not extend to cases where the defamatory material is a photograph of another person who is merely a 'look-alike' of the claimant. To do so would be a disproportionate and unjustifiable interference with freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR, as there is no pressing social need for such an extension. The claimant's case has no realistic prospect of success as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out as having no realistic prospect of success