Roberts & Anor v Gable & Ors [2006] EWHC 1025 (QB) (12 May 2006)

Roberts & Anor v Gable & Ors [2006] EWHC 1025 (QB) (12 May 2006)

The defence of qualified privilege was upheld because the article constituted reportage of an ongoing political dispute within the BNP, reporting both sides' allegations without adoption or endorsement. The public had a legitimate interest in the dispute, and the fact of the allegations being made was of public concern. The requirements for reportage privilege were satisfied, and the circumstances were analogous to Al-Fagih. The lack of verification and failure to seek comment did not defeat the defence in this context.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1025
Parties
Claimant: Christopher Roberts; Claimant: Barry Roberts; Defendant: Gerry Gable; Defendant: Steve Silver; Defendant: Searchlight Magazine Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Libel Proceedings / Preliminary Issue on Qualified Privilege
Outcome
Defence of qualified privilege upheld; claim fails on this preliminary issue.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Reportage Doctrine, Freedom of Expression, Political Speech, Repetition Rule
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Qualified Privilege Reportage Doctrine Freedom of Expression Political Speech Repetition Rule

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Roberts

Claimant

Barry Roberts

Claimant

Gerry Gable

Defendant

Steve Silver

Defendant

Searchlight Magazine Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Proceedings / Preliminary Issue on Qualified Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applies to the publication of defamatory allegations in the context of political party disputes under the reportage doctrine.

Ratio Decidendi

The defence of qualified privilege was upheld because the article constituted reportage of an ongoing political dispute within the BNP, reporting both sides' allegations without adoption or endorsement. The public had a legitimate interest in the dispute, and the fact of the allegations being made was of public concern. The requirements for reportage privilege were satisfied, and the circumstances were analogous to Al-Fagih. The lack of verification and failure to seek comment did not defeat the defence in this context.

Court Disposition

Defence of qualified privilege upheld; claim fails on this preliminary issue.