William Hay v Nina Cresswell

William Hay v Nina Cresswell

The defendant established, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant violently sexually assaulted her in May 2010. The imputation in the publications was substantially true. The statements were on matters of public interest, the defendant believed publication was in the public interest, and that belief was reasonable. The statutory defences of truth and public interest under the Defamation Act 2013 were made out. The claim fails.

Parties
Claimant: Mr William Hay; Defendant: Ms Nina Cresswell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Truth Defence, Public Interest Defence, Qualified Privilege, Serious Harm, Sexual Assault Allegations, Tattoo Industry, Social Media Publications
Defamation Media Law Libel Truth Defence Public Interest Defence Qualified Privilege Serious Harm Sexual Assault Allegations +2 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 4 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr William Hay

Claimant

Ms Nina Cresswell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words published by the defendant?
  2. 2 Has the defendant established the truth defence under section 2(1) of the Defamation Act 2013?
  3. 3 Were the publications statements on a matter of public interest under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant established, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant violently sexually assaulted her in May 2010. The imputation in the publications was substantially true. The statements were on matters of public interest, the defendant believed publication was in the public interest, and that belief was reasonable. The statutory defences of truth and public interest under the Defamation Act 2013 were made out. The claim fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed