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 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 such material, especially the final sentence stating the claimant declined to comment, meant the article was not protected by statutory qualified privilege. The privilege did not attach to the entire publication. The question of malice was not determinative as privilege was not established for the whole article.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2606
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.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Absolute Privilege, Malice, Fair and Accurate Reporting, Public Concern, Public Benefit
Media Law Defamation Qualified Privilege Absolute Privilege Malice Fair and Accurate Reporting Public Concern Public Benefit

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 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 publication is protected by statutory or common law privilege
  2. 2 Whether the publication was a fair and accurate extract from court documents
  3. 3 Whether the publication was of public concern and for the public benefit

Ratio Decidendi

The first article 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 such material, especially the final sentence stating the claimant declined to comment, meant the article was not protected by statutory qualified privilege. The privilege did not attach to the entire publication. The question of malice was not determinative as privilege was not established for the whole article.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The defence of statutory qualified privilege under Defamation Act 1996 s.15 and Schedule 1 Part I is not available to the defendant in respect of the first article.
  • The case is to proceed to trial on the remaining issues, including justification (truth) and damages.