Brady v Norman [2008] EWHC 2481 (QB) (20 October 2008)

Brady v Norman [2008] EWHC 2481 (QB) (20 October 2008)

Qualified privilege did not protect publication to 131 of the 202 additional recipients as no legitimate interest was shown; the words complained of were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning; there was insufficient evidence to leave to the jury the inference of website publication to non-privileged recipients.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2481 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Shaun Brady; Defendant: Keith Norman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Pre Trial Rulings on Matters of Law
Outcome
Rulings made: qualified privilege denied for publication to 131 recipients; defamatory meaning capable; no evidence for website publication to non-privileged readers.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Defamatory Meaning, Internet Publication, Trade Union Law
Defamation Media Law Qualified Privilege Defamatory Meaning Internet Publication Trade Union Law

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaun Brady

Claimant

Keith Norman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Pre Trial Rulings on Matters of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication was protected by qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning
  3. 3 Whether there was evidence to leave to the jury for inference of internet publication to non-privileged recipients

Ratio Decidendi

Qualified privilege did not protect publication to 131 of the 202 additional recipients as no legitimate interest was shown; the words complained of were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning; there was insufficient evidence to leave to the jury the inference of website publication to non-privileged recipients.

Court Disposition

Rulings made: qualified privilege denied for publication to 131 recipients; defamatory meaning capable; no evidence for website publication to non-privileged readers.

Orders

  • Publication to 131 recipients not protected by qualified privilege
  • Words complained of to be left to jury as capable of defamatory meaning