Maccaba v Lichtenstein

Maccaba v Lichtenstein

The court held that the question of qualified privilege is governed by English law and public policy, not by Jewish law. Privilege attaches to the occasion, not the words, unless the words are not germane. The Defendant was protected by qualified privilege in respect of statements made to Alfred Magnus, Mr and Mrs Dray, and Rabbi David Daniel Cohen, but not in respect of statements made to David Kohali, Dayan Toledano, Abraham Suissa, or Charles Gabbay.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Brian Yosef Maccaba; Defendant: Dayan Yisroel Yaakov Lichtenstein
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Post Jury Ruling on Qualified Privilege
Outcome
Mixed: Qualified privilege upheld for some occasions, rejected for others.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Slander, Religious Law and Secular Law Interface
Defamation Tort Law Qualified Privilege Slander Religious Law and Secular Law Interface

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Brian Yosef Maccaba

Claimant

Dayan Yisroel Yaakov Lichtenstein

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Post Jury Ruling on Qualified Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's statements were protected by qualified privilege under English law
  2. 2 Whether Jewish law is determinative of the existence of privilege in this context
  3. 3 Whether the specific occasions of publication were privileged

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the question of qualified privilege is governed by English law and public policy, not by Jewish law. Privilege attaches to the occasion, not the words, unless the words are not germane. The Defendant was protected by qualified privilege in respect of statements made to Alfred Magnus, Mr and Mrs Dray, and Rabbi David Daniel Cohen, but not in respect of statements made to David Kohali, Dayan Toledano, Abraham Suissa, or Charles Gabbay.

Court Disposition

Mixed: Qualified privilege upheld for some occasions, rejected for others.

Orders

  • Qualified privilege applies to statements made to Alfred Magnus, Mr and Mrs Dray, and Rabbi David Daniel Cohen.
  • Qualified privilege does not apply to statements made to David Kohali, Dayan Toledano, Abraham Suissa, or Charles Gabbay.