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 opinion is honestly held and based on facts accurately stated or generally known; reasonableness or fairness is not required. On the pleaded and uncontroversial facts, no jury could properly find that the defendant's opinions could not honestly be held. The claimant's pleaded meanings of dishonourable or hypocritical conduct are unsustainable, but the words may still be capable of bearing a lesser defamatory meaning, which is a matter for the jury.

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 claimant's pleaded meanings of dishonourable or hypocritical conduct are struck out. The issue of malice remains for trial, and the article may still be capable of bearing a lesser defamatory meaning, which is for...
Legal Topics
Fair Comment Defence, Freedom of Expression, Malice in Defamation, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Article 10 ECHR
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Fair Comment Defence Freedom of Expression Malice in Defamation Meaning of Defamatory Statements 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 5 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 opinion is honestly held and based on facts accurately stated or generally known; reasonableness or fairness is not required. On the pleaded and uncontroversial facts, no jury could properly find that the defendant's opinions could not honestly be held. The claimant's pleaded meanings of dishonourable or hypocritical conduct are unsustainable, but the words may still be capable of bearing a lesser defamatory meaning, which is a matter for the jury.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part; the defence of fair comment is established on the objective test. The claimant's pleaded meanings of dishonourable or hypocritical conduct are struck out. The issue of malice remains for trial, and the article may still be capable of bearing a lesser defamatory meaning, which is for...

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the defendant on the objective test for fair comment.
  • Striking out of the claimant's pleaded meanings of dishonourable or hypocritical conduct.