Qadir v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2606 (QB) (05 October 2012)

Qadir v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2606 (QB) (05 October 2012)

The first article was not protected by statutory qualified privilege because it was not solely a fair and accurate extract from the Particulars of Claim but included extraneous material and was the product of journalistic investigation. The inclusion of the false statement that the claimant declined to comment and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2606 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Irfan Qadir; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Judgment on Preliminary Issues of Privilege and Malice
Outcome
Statutory qualified privilege defence rejected for the first article; case to proceed on remaining issues if necessary.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Absolute Privilege, Malice, Fair and Accurate Reporting, Public Concern, Public Benefit, Civil Procedure Rules, Defamation Act 1996
Media Law Defamation Qualified Privilege Absolute Privilege Malice Fair and Accurate Reporting Public Concern Public Benefit +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irfan Qadir

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Judgment on Preliminary Issues of Privilege and Malice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's publications are protected by statutory or common law privilege
  2. 2 Whether the articles were fair and accurate extracts from court documents
  3. 3 Whether the publications were of public concern and for the public benefit

Ratio Decidendi

The first article was not protected by statutory qualified privilege because it was not solely a fair and accurate extract from the Particulars of Claim but included extraneous material and was the product of journalistic investigation. The inclusion of the false statement that the claimant declined to comment and other non-extract content defeated the privilege. The article was not solely a report of a public document and thus did not meet the requirements for statutory privilege under the Defamation Act 1996. The question of malice did not arise as privilege was not established.

Court Disposition

Statutory qualified privilege defence rejected for the first article; case to proceed on remaining issues if necessary.

Orders

  • Defendant's defence of statutory qualified privilege in respect of the first article is dismissed.
  • Case to proceed to trial on remaining issues if required.