Zoë Harcombe PhD & Anor v Associated Newspapers Limited & Anor

Zoë Harcombe PhD & Anor v Associated Newspapers Limited & Anor

The Defendants' public interest defence failed because their belief that publication was in the public interest was not reasonable: the articles misrepresented the statin debate, omitted key context, and did not fairly present the Claimants' responses. The reporting privilege defence for the Hancock Statement failed as the articles' use of the statement was not fair or accurate. The reporting privilege for the LSHTM Paper succeeded except where the articles inaccurately linked the Claimants to the study. The articles' natural and ordinary meaning was that the Claimants knowingly published false information about statins, causing public harm, and were motivated by venal interests. The...

Parties
Claimant: Zoë Harcombe PhD; Claimant: Dr Malcolm Kendrick; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited; Defendant: Barney Calman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues (public Interest, Privilege, Meaning, Fact/opinion, Malice)
Outcome
Defendants' public interest defence dismissed; reporting privilege for Hancock Statement dismissed; reporting privilege for LSHTM Paper upheld except for inaccurate linkage; malice not established; Defendants did not hold the opinions expressed; Claimants succeed on preliminary issues.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Public Interest Defence, Honest Opinion, Statutory Reporting Privilege, Peer Reviewed Scientific Publication, Malice, Meaning (fact/opinion), Damages, Innuendo, Editorial Judgment
Media Law Defamation Freedom of Expression Qualified Privilege Public Interest Defence Honest Opinion Statutory Reporting Privilege Peer Reviewed Scientific Publication +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zoë Harcombe PhD

Claimant

Dr Malcolm Kendrick

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Barney Calman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues (public Interest, Privilege, Meaning, Fact/opinion, Malice)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the articles published by the Defendants about the Claimants were protected by statutory qualified privilege (s.15 Defamation Act 1996, s.6 Defamation Act 2013)
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants could rely on the public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 What was the natural and ordinary meaning of the publications and whether they were statements of fact or opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants' public interest defence failed because their belief that publication was in the public interest was not reasonable: the articles misrepresented the statin debate, omitted key context, and did not fairly present the Claimants' responses. The reporting privilege defence for the Hancock Statement failed as the articles' use of the statement was not fair or accurate. The reporting privilege for the LSHTM Paper succeeded except where the articles inaccurately linked the Claimants to the study. The articles' natural and ordinary meaning was that the Claimants knowingly published false information about statins, causing public harm, and were motivated by venal interests. The...

Court Disposition

Defendants' public interest defence dismissed; reporting privilege for Hancock Statement dismissed; reporting privilege for LSHTM Paper upheld except for inaccurate linkage; malice not established; Defendants did not hold the opinions expressed; Claimants succeed on preliminary issues.

Orders

  • Defendants' public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013 dismissed for all publications.
  • Defendants' reporting privilege defence for the Hancock Statement dismissed for lack of fairness and accuracy.