Doyle v Smith

Doyle v Smith

The Second Article conveyed a meaning just short of an outright allegation of fraud, causing serious reputational harm. The public interest defence failed because the defendant knowingly published a false account and did not reasonably believe publication was in the public interest. The Third Article conveyed reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of criminal offences, and its publication caused serious harm. Damages were awarded and an injunction granted due to risk of repetition.

Parties
Claimant: Stephen Doyle; Defendant: Patrick Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Public Interest Defence, Serious Harm Requirement, Damages, Injunction
Defamation Media Law Libel Public Interest Defence Serious Harm Requirement Damages Injunction

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Doyle

Claimant

Patrick Smith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Natural and ordinary meaning of the Second Article
  2. 2 Whether publication is protected by the public interest defence under Defamation Act 2013 s.4
  3. 3 Whether publication of the Third Article caused or was likely to cause serious harm under Defamation Act 2013 s.1

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Article conveyed a meaning just short of an outright allegation of fraud, causing serious reputational harm. The public interest defence failed because the defendant knowingly published a false account and did not reasonably believe publication was in the public interest. The Third Article conveyed reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of criminal offences, and its publication caused serious harm. Damages were awarded and an injunction granted due to risk of repetition.

Court Disposition

Judgment for claimant

Orders

  • Damages of £30,000 for the Second Article
  • Damages of £7,500 for the Third Article