Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 1884 (QB) (26 July 2011)

Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 1884 (QB) (26 July 2011)

The court found that Ms Barber published the defamatory statement that Dr Thornton had not interviewed her either knowing it was false or with reckless indifference to its truth, motivated in part by spite due to criticism in Dr Thornton's book. The offer of amends defence failed because the statutory threshold of recklessness was met. The court also found the 'copy approval' allegation to be a malicious falsehood, as Ms Barber had no honest basis for asserting that Dr Thornton gave interviewees the right to alter text.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1884 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Sarah Thornton; Defendant: Telegraph Media Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant on both libel and malicious falsehood claims.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Offer of Amends, Recklessness, Journalistic Standards
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Malicious Falsehood Offer of Amends Recklessness Journalistic Standards

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Thornton

Claimant

Telegraph Media Group Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant published defamatory statements knowing them to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth (libel)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant published a malicious falsehood regarding 'copy approval'
  3. 3 Whether the offer of amends under s.2 Defamation Act 1996 is a defence in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Ms Barber published the defamatory statement that Dr Thornton had not interviewed her either knowing it was false or with reckless indifference to its truth, motivated in part by spite due to criticism in Dr Thornton's book. The offer of amends defence failed because the statutory threshold of recklessness was met. The court also found the 'copy approval' allegation to be a malicious falsehood, as Ms Barber had no honest basis for asserting that Dr Thornton gave interviewees the right to alter text.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant on both libel and malicious falsehood claims.

Orders

  • Damages to be assessed for libel and malicious falsehood.
  • Injunction against further publication of the defamatory statements.