Charman v Orion Group Publishing Group Ltd & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 972 (10 October 2007)

Charman v Orion Group Publishing Group Ltd & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 972 (10 October 2007)

The book did not constitute neutral reportage as the author partially adopted allegations against Charman and failed to report the facts fully, fairly, and disinterestedly. The defendants did not act responsibly in communicating the information, as the reporting was selective, omitted material exculpatory evidence, and presented a distorted account. The defence of qualified privilege failed.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 972
Parties
Respondent: Michael Charman; Appellant: Orion Group Publishing Group Ltd; Appellant: Orion Books Ltd; Appellant: Graeme McLagan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; qualified privilege defence rejected.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Responsible Journalism, Reportage, Libel, Public Interest
Defamation Media Law Tort Qualified Privilege Responsible Journalism Reportage Libel Public Interest

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Charman

Respondent

Orion Group Publishing Group Ltd

Appellant

Orion Books Ltd

Appellant

Graeme McLagan

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication constituted neutral reportage under Reynolds privilege
  2. 2 Whether the author and publishers acted responsibly in communicating defamatory information
  3. 3 Extent of qualified privilege for books versus newspapers

Ratio Decidendi

The book did not constitute neutral reportage as the author partially adopted allegations against Charman and failed to report the facts fully, fairly, and disinterestedly. The defendants did not act responsibly in communicating the information, as the reporting was selective, omitted material exculpatory evidence, and presented a distorted account. The defence of qualified privilege failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; qualified privilege defence rejected.

Orders

  • Defendants' qualified privilege defences dismissed.
  • No statutory privilege for reporting court proceedings due to lack of fairness and accuracy.