Joseph & Ors v Spiller & Anor [2012] EWHC 2958 (QB) (26 October 2012)

Joseph & Ors v Spiller & Anor [2012] EWHC 2958 (QB) (26 October 2012)

The court found that the Defendants' statements were defamatory but only partially true. The Claimants had acted unprofessionally in relation to the Bibis and Landmarc bookings, justifying some of the Defendants' comments. However, the Defendants failed to prove the more serious allegations of a contemptuous or cavalier attitude to contracts or a real risk to clients. The defence of honest opinion succeeded only to the extent that the Defendants' opinions were based on proven facts and genuinely held. The Defendants did not act with malice.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2958
Parties
Claimant: Craig Joseph; Claimant: Jason Joseph; Claimant: Anthony Raymond; Defendant: Jason Spiller; Defendant: 1311 Events Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Partially in favour of the Claimants; Defendants' defences of justification and honest opinion succeed only in part.
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification (truth), Honest Opinion, Defamation Act 1952, Meaning of Defamatory Words, Malice
Defamation Media Law Libel Justification (truth) Honest Opinion Defamation Act 1952 Meaning of Defamatory Words Malice

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Joseph

Claimant

Jason Joseph

Claimant

Anthony Raymond

Claimant

Jason Spiller

Defendant

1311 Events Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words published by the Defendants were defamatory of the Claimants
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' statements were substantially true (justification)
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants' statements were protected as honest opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendants' statements were defamatory but only partially true. The Claimants had acted unprofessionally in relation to the Bibis and Landmarc bookings, justifying some of the Defendants' comments. However, the Defendants failed to prove the more serious allegations of a contemptuous or cavalier attitude to contracts or a real risk to clients. The defence of honest opinion succeeded only to the extent that the Defendants' opinions were based on proven facts and genuinely held. The Defendants did not act with malice.

Court Disposition

Partially in favour of the Claimants; Defendants' defences of justification and honest opinion succeed only in part.

Orders

  • Damages to be assessed for the defamatory meanings not justified or protected by honest opinion.
  • Injunction against further publication of the defamatory statements not justified or protected by honest opinion.