Patterson v ICN Photonics Ltd.

Patterson v ICN Photonics Ltd.

The words in the letter are not reasonably capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meaning against the manufacturer, as there is no reference or implication of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer for the unsupervised use of the laser. Any such meaning would require a strained or unreasonable interpretation.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. Mervyn Patterson; Respondent: ICN Photonics Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Defamation, Slander of Goods, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Responsibility for Product Use
Defamation Tort Slander of Goods Meaning of Defamatory Statements Responsibility for Product Use

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Mervyn Patterson

Appellant

ICN Photonics Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words in the letter are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning against the manufacturer
  2. 2 Whether the words are capable of supporting a claim for slander of goods

Ratio Decidendi

The words in the letter are not reasonably capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meaning against the manufacturer, as there is no reference or implication of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer for the unsupervised use of the laser. Any such meaning would require a strained or unreasonable interpretation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order in the terms of the draft minuted order
  • Respondent to pay Appellant’s costs below in the sum of £6,558.88