Economou v David De Freitas (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 1853 (QB) (27 July 2016)

Economou v David De Freitas (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 1853 (QB) (27 July 2016)

The court found that the claimant was identified in the publications and that the words complained of conveyed an implied defamatory meaning that there were reasonable grounds to suspect he was guilty of rape. However, the defendant was entitled to rely on the public interest defence, as the publications concerned matters of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed publication was in the public interest.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1853
Parties
Claimant: Alexander Economou; Defendant: David de Freitas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Public Interest Defence, Identification, Responsibility, Defamatory Meaning
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Libel Serious Harm Public Interest Defence Identification Responsibility +1 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Economou

Claimant

David de Freitas

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was identified in the publications
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was responsible for the publications
  3. 3 Whether the publications conveyed defamatory meaning about the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant was identified in the publications and that the words complained of conveyed an implied defamatory meaning that there were reasonable grounds to suspect he was guilty of rape. However, the defendant was entitled to rely on the public interest defence, as the publications concerned matters of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed publication was in the public interest.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No damages awarded
  • Defendant entitled to rely on public interest defence