Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 338 (20 December 2000)

Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 338 (20 December 2000)

The court held that some parts of the defendants' pleaded particulars should have been admitted as directly relevant background context to the defamatory publication, but much of the rest was irrelevant and properly excluded. The judge's exclusion of all such evidence was too restrictive. The jury should have been allowed to consider confined background facts directly related to the context of the publication in assessing damages. The appeal was allowed to the extent that a retrial on damages was ordered with appropriate directions on admissibility.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 338
Parties
Claimant: Keith Burstein; Defendants: Times Newspapers Ltd and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; retrial on damages ordered
Legal Topics
Libel Damages, Mitigation of Damages, Admissibility of Evidence, Fair Comment Defence, Case Management in Defamation
Defamation Media Law Libel Damages Mitigation of Damages Admissibility of Evidence Fair Comment Defence Case Management in Defamation

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Burstein

Claimant

Times Newspapers Ltd and others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants could rely on facts pleaded in support of a struck-out fair comment defence in mitigation of libel damages
  2. 2 Whether summary disposal under Defamation Act 1996 was appropriate
  3. 3 Proper scope of admissible evidence in mitigation of damages in libel cases

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that some parts of the defendants' pleaded particulars should have been admitted as directly relevant background context to the defamatory publication, but much of the rest was irrelevant and properly excluded. The judge's exclusion of all such evidence was too restrictive. The jury should have been allowed to consider confined background facts directly related to the context of the publication in assessing damages. The appeal was allowed to the extent that a retrial on damages was ordered with appropriate directions on admissibility.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; retrial on damages ordered

Orders

  • Retrial on damages with directions for admissibility of confined background context evidence
  • Costs to be determined