Thompson v James
The natural and ordinary meaning of 'slush fund' in the context of the blog posting was that Mr James was unlawfully and corruptly using public money for the benefit of himself and his cronies. The trial judge's finding on meaning was correct and not open to interference. Article 10 ECHR does not require a separate principle tipping the balance in favour of a non-defamatory meaning when government officials are criticised.
- Parties
- Appellant: Jacqueline Thompson; Respondent: Mark James
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 14 May 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Libel, Meaning in Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Local Authority Indemnity, Article 10 ECHR
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jacqueline Thompson
Appellant
Mark James
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the blog posting by Mrs Thompson was defamatory of Mr James
- 2 Whether the term 'slush fund' in context accused Mr James of corrupt and unlawful use of public funds
- 3 Whether Article 10 ECHR requires a non-defamatory interpretation in cases of criticism of government officials
Ratio Decidendi
The natural and ordinary meaning of 'slush fund' in the context of the blog posting was that Mr James was unlawfully and corruptly using public money for the benefit of himself and his cronies. The trial judge's finding on meaning was correct and not open to interference. Article 10 ECHR does not require a separate principle tipping the balance in favour of a non-defamatory meaning when government officials are criticised.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment