Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd

Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd

The print publication and website publication up to 5 September 2007 were protected by qualified privilege as responsible journalism on a matter of high public interest, with the editorial decisions falling within the permissible range. However, continued website publication after 5 September 2007, when the Claimant had been exonerated and the investigation concluded, was not responsible journalism and was not protected by qualified privilege.

Parties
Claimant: Gary Flood; Defendant: Times Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Trial of Preliminary Issue on Qualified Privilege (reynolds Defence)
Outcome
Defence of qualified privilege (Reynolds) succeeds for print and website publication up to 5 September 2007; fails for website publication after 5 September 2007.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege (reynolds Defence), Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr), Right to Reputation (article 8 Echr), Responsible Journalism, Police Investigations, Website Publication Liability
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Qualified Privilege (reynolds Defence) Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr) Right to Reputation (article 8 Echr) Responsible Journalism Police Investigations +1 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Flood

Claimant

Times Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Trial of Preliminary Issue on Qualified Privilege (reynolds Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication in The Times and on its website of allegations against the Claimant was protected by qualified privilege (Reynolds defence)
  2. 2 Whether the continued publication on the website after the outcome of the police investigation was protected by qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the balance between freedom of expression and the right to reputation was properly struck

Ratio Decidendi

The print publication and website publication up to 5 September 2007 were protected by qualified privilege as responsible journalism on a matter of high public interest, with the editorial decisions falling within the permissible range. However, continued website publication after 5 September 2007, when the Claimant had been exonerated and the investigation concluded, was not responsible journalism and was not protected by qualified privilege.

Court Disposition

Defence of qualified privilege (Reynolds) succeeds for print and website publication up to 5 September 2007; fails for website publication after 5 September 2007.

Orders

  • Defence of qualified privilege upheld for print publication and website publication up to 5 September 2007.
  • Defence of qualified privilege fails for website publication after 5 September 2007.