Malik v Newspost Ltd & Ors [2007] EWHC 3063 (QB) (20 December 2007)

Malik v Newspost Ltd & Ors [2007] EWHC 3063 (QB) (20 December 2007)

The defence of privilege failed because the publications did not meet the requirements of responsible journalism under Reynolds; specifically, the defendants did not make sufficient efforts to seek the claimant's response or verify the allegations before publication, and the direct assertions by the contributor were not protected by privilege.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 3063
Parties
Claimant: Shahid Malik; Defendant: Newspost Ltd; Defendant: Danny Lockwood; Defendant: Jonathan Scott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Ruling on Defence of Privilege After Close of Evidence
Outcome
Defence of privilege rejected; claimant entitled to judgment on that defence.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Reynolds Defence, Public Interest, Defamatory Allegations, Article 8 ECHR
Media Law Defamation Human Rights Qualified Privilege Reynolds Defence Public Interest Defamatory Allegations Article 8 ECHR

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shahid Malik

Claimant

Newspost Ltd

Defendant

Danny Lockwood

Defendant

Jonathan Scott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Ruling on Defence of Privilege After Close of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publications are protected by qualified privilege under Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd
  2. 2 Whether a non-journalist contributor can claim Reynolds privilege
  3. 3 Whether the publisher and editor took sufficient steps to verify allegations and seek claimant's response

Ratio Decidendi

The defence of privilege failed because the publications did not meet the requirements of responsible journalism under Reynolds; specifically, the defendants did not make sufficient efforts to seek the claimant's response or verify the allegations before publication, and the direct assertions by the contributor were not protected by privilege.

Court Disposition

Defence of privilege rejected; claimant entitled to judgment on that defence.

Orders

  • Defence of privilege struck out
  • Proceedings to continue on remaining issues