Bunt v Tilley & Ors [2006] EWHC 407 (QB) (10 March 2006)

Bunt v Tilley & Ors [2006] EWHC 407 (QB) (10 March 2006)

ISPs who perform no more than a passive role in facilitating internet postings cannot be deemed publishers at common law and are not liable for defamatory statements transmitted via their services. The Defendants did not knowingly participate in publication, did not host or control the content, and are protected by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 and s.1 of the Defamation Act 1996. There is no realistic prospect of the Claimant establishing liability against the ISPs.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 407
Parties
Claimant: John Bunt; Defendant: David Tilley; Defendant: Paul Hancox; Defendant: Christopher Stevens; Defendant: AOL UK Ltd; Defendant: Tiscali UK Ltd; Defendant: British Telecommunications plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation) / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Claims against the corporate Defendants (AOL UK Ltd, Tiscali UK Ltd, British Telecommunications plc) struck out or dismissed on a summary basis.
Legal Topics
ISP Liability, Publication, Innocent Dissemination, Electronic Commerce (ec Directive) Regulations 2002, Defamation Act 1996, Summary Judgment, Common Law Publisher, Mere Conduit, Caching, Hosting
Defamation Internet Law Tort ISP Liability Publication Innocent Dissemination Electronic Commerce (ec Directive) Regulations 2002 Defamation Act 1996 +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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Bunt

Claimant

David Tilley

Defendant

Paul Hancox

Defendant

Christopher Stevens

Defendant

AOL UK Ltd

Defendant

Tiscali UK Ltd

Defendant

British Telecommunications plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation) / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ISPs who merely provide internet access can be liable as publishers at common law for defamatory statements posted by their customers
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants are protected by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 as 'mere conduits' or 'cachers'
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants can rely on the defence under s.1 of the Defamation Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

ISPs who perform no more than a passive role in facilitating internet postings cannot be deemed publishers at common law and are not liable for defamatory statements transmitted via their services. The Defendants did not knowingly participate in publication, did not host or control the content, and are protected by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 and s.1 of the Defamation Act 1996. There is no realistic prospect of the Claimant establishing liability against the ISPs.

Court Disposition

Claims against the corporate Defendants (AOL UK Ltd, Tiscali UK Ltd, British Telecommunications plc) struck out or dismissed on a summary basis.

Orders

  • Claims against the fourth, fifth, and sixth Defendants are struck out or dismissed.
  • No order for injunctive relief against the corporate Defendants.