Pitman -v- Jersey Evening Post and 1st Jersey Ltd [2012] JRC 092 (10 May 2012)

Pitman -v- Jersey Evening Post and 1st Jersey Ltd [2012] JRC 092 (10 May 2012)

The cartoon, published in the advertising section as political satire, did not meet the threshold of seriousness required for defamation; ordinary reasonable readers would not have understood it to mean the Plaintiffs were greedy money-grabbers or had deceived their electorates, either in its natural and ordinary meaning or by innuendo.

Citation
[2012] JRC 092
Parties
Plaintiff: Mrs Shona Pitman; Plaintiff: Mr Trevor Pitman; First Defendant: Jersey Evening Post; Second Defendant: 1st Jersey Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
10 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed with costs to the Defendants.
Legal Topics
Libel, Defamatory Meaning, Innuendo, Freedom of Expression, Threshold of Seriousness, Political Satire
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Libel Defamatory Meaning Innuendo Freedom of Expression Threshold of Seriousness +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Shona Pitman

Plaintiff

Mr Trevor Pitman

Plaintiff

Jersey Evening Post

First Defendant

1st Jersey Ltd.

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cartoon published in the Jersey Evening Post was defamatory of the Plaintiffs in its natural and ordinary meaning or by innuendo
  2. 2 Whether the context of political satire and publication in an advertising section affects the threshold of seriousness for defamation
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs' reputations were substantially adversely affected by the publication

Ratio Decidendi

The cartoon, published in the advertising section as political satire, did not meet the threshold of seriousness required for defamation; ordinary reasonable readers would not have understood it to mean the Plaintiffs were greedy money-grabbers or had deceived their electorates, either in its natural and ordinary meaning or by innuendo.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

Orders

  • The Plaintiffs' claim is dismissed.
  • The Plaintiffs are to pay the Defendants' costs.