Economou v De Freitas

Economou v De Freitas

The respondent's belief that publication was in the public interest was reasonable in all the circumstances, including his role as a non-journalist contributor, the seriousness and public importance of the issues, and his reliance on media organisations for verification and balance. The appellant failed to prove serious harm from the November publications due to limited identification and causation. The public interest defence succeeded for all publications, and the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Alexander Economou; Respondent: David de Freitas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Public Interest Defence, Serious Harm Threshold, Freedom of Expression, Protection of Reputation
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Libel Public Interest Defence Serious Harm Threshold Freedom of Expression Protection of Reputation

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

Alexander Economou

Appellant

David de Freitas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 was available to the respondent for the publications complained of
  2. 2 Whether the appellant suffered 'serious harm' to his reputation as required by section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 in respect of the November publications
  3. 3 Whether the meanings attributed to the publications were correct

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's belief that publication was in the public interest was reasonable in all the circumstances, including his role as a non-journalist contributor, the seriousness and public importance of the issues, and his reliance on media organisations for verification and balance. The appellant failed to prove serious harm from the November publications due to limited identification and causation. The public interest defence succeeded for all publications, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 succeeds for all publications. No damages or injunctive relief awarded to the appellant.