Branson v Bower [2001] EWHC QB 460 (15 June 2001)

Branson v Bower [2001] EWHC QB 460 (15 June 2001)

The only requirements for the defence of fair comment are that the defendant honestly expressed the opinions and did so upon facts accurately stated or generally known. No reasonable jury could find that the defendant's opinions could not honestly be held on the pleaded facts. The claimant's pleaded meanings read too much into the words; no reasonable reader could derive imputations of hypocrisy or dishonourable behaviour. However, it is not possible to rule that the article is incapable of bearing any defamatory meaning at all.

Citation
[2001] EWHC QB 460
Parties
Claimant: Richard Branson; Defendant: Tom Bower
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Summary Judgment Application Prior to Trial
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part; the defence of fair comment is established on the objective test. The case may proceed to trial only on the issue of malice and the range of possible defamatory meanings.
Legal Topics
Fair Comment, Freedom of Expression, Malice, Defamatory Meaning, Article 10 ECHR
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Fair Comment Freedom of Expression Malice Defamatory Meaning Article 10 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 33 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Branson

Claimant

Tom Bower

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Summary Judgment Application Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are fair comment or fact
  2. 2 Whether the defence of fair comment is available to the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has a real prospect of establishing malice

Ratio Decidendi

The only requirements for the defence of fair comment are that the defendant honestly expressed the opinions and did so upon facts accurately stated or generally known. No reasonable jury could find that the defendant's opinions could not honestly be held on the pleaded facts. The claimant's pleaded meanings read too much into the words; no reasonable reader could derive imputations of hypocrisy or dishonourable behaviour. However, it is not possible to rule that the article is incapable of bearing any defamatory meaning at all.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part; the defence of fair comment is established on the objective test. The case may proceed to trial only on the issue of malice and the range of possible defamatory meanings.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the defendant on the objective test for fair comment.
  • Claimant's pleaded meanings of hypocrisy and dishonourable conduct struck out.