Qadir v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Qadir v Associated Newspapers Ltd

The defendant's publications were not protected by statutory or common law privilege because they were not fair and accurate extracts or reports, omitted to state that the claim was disputed or the judge's exculpatory remarks, and included misleading statements. The publications were not of public concern or for the...

Source-derived case information.

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
Defences of absolute and qualified privilege (statutory and common law) fail; plea of malice succeeds in part; no defence to the words complained of except for a limited plea of justification to a reference in the second article.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Absolute Privilege, Common Law Privilege, Fair and Accurate Reporting, Public Concern and Public Benefit, Malice, Repetition Rule, Open Justice, Reporting of Court Proceedings
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Absolute Privilege Common Law Privilege Fair and Accurate Reporting Public Concern and Public Benefit +4 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 were protected by statutory or common law privilege
  2. 2 Whether the publications were fair and accurate extracts or reports as required by law
  3. 3 Whether the publications were of public concern and for the public benefit

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's publications were not protected by statutory or common law privilege because they were not fair and accurate extracts or reports, omitted to state that the claim was disputed or the judge's exculpatory remarks, and included misleading statements. The publications were not of public concern or for the public benefit in the absence of such balancing information. Malice was established for the online publication of the first article from 17 June onwards and for the second article, as the defendant continued to publish knowing the information was false or misleading.

Court Disposition

Defences of absolute and qualified privilege (statutory and common law) fail; plea of malice succeeds in part; no defence to the words complained of except for a limited plea of justification to a reference in the second article.