Daniels v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [2010] EWHC 3057 (QB) (24 November 2010)

Daniels v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [2010] EWHC 3057 (QB) (24 November 2010)

The words in the feedback schedule are not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning as they relate to minor criticisms of work performance in a junior administrative role, do not meet the threshold of seriousness, and would not lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. Even if they were capable of being defamatory, the defence of qualified privilege would succeed, and there is no evidence of malice.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3057
Parties
Claimant: Dr Christopher Sydney Daniels; Defendant: British Broadcasting Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Libel Actions (three Consolidated Claims) / Summary Judgment/strike Out Applications
Outcome
Claims struck out; summary judgment for defendants.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Threshold of Seriousness, Business Defamation, Multiplicity of Proceedings
Defamation Employment Law Libel Qualified Privilege Malice Threshold of Seriousness Business Defamation Multiplicity of Proceedings

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Christopher Sydney Daniels

Claimant

British Broadcasting Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Actions (three Consolidated Claims) / Summary Judgment/strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applies
  3. 3 Whether there is any realistic prospect of proving malice

Ratio Decidendi

The words in the feedback schedule are not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning as they relate to minor criticisms of work performance in a junior administrative role, do not meet the threshold of seriousness, and would not lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. Even if they were capable of being defamatory, the defence of qualified privilege would succeed, and there is no evidence of malice.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out; summary judgment for defendants.

Orders

  • All three libel actions (against BBC, Ms Bird, Ms Heidari) are struck out.
  • No extended civil restraint order is made.