Starr v Ward

Starr v Ward

All claims fail because the defendant proved the truth of the essential allegations (that the claimant groped and humiliated her as an underage schoolgirl), no actionable special damage was established, the slander claim for the BBC interview was time barred, the defendant did not authorise or intend identification in the BBC broadcast, and the eBook publication was not a real and substantial tort due to minimal readership and insufficient identification.

Parties
Claimant: Frederick Leslie Starr; Defendant: Karin Ward
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Final Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the defendant
Legal Topics
Slander, Libel, Truth Defence, Qualified Privilege, Reynolds Privilege, Limitation, Identification, Abuse of Process
Defamation Media Law Tort Slander Libel Truth Defence Qualified Privilege Reynolds Privilege +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick Leslie Starr

Claimant

Karin Ward

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's publications (interviews, broadcasts, eBook) were defamatory of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claims in slander and libel are actionable without proof of special damage
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's words imputed a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment

Ratio Decidendi

All claims fail because the defendant proved the truth of the essential allegations (that the claimant groped and humiliated her as an underage schoolgirl), no actionable special damage was established, the slander claim for the BBC interview was time barred, the defendant did not authorise or intend identification in the BBC broadcast, and the eBook publication was not a real and substantial tort due to minimal readership and insufficient identification.

Court Disposition

judgment for the defendant