DEFAMATION
By Reza L.
Defamation is the publication of a statement that reflects on a person’s reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or tends to make them shun or avoid him.’
(Winfield)
According to the Defamation Act 2013 in the UK, any living human being or company may sue for defamation subject to the ‘serious harm’ criteria of Section 1 of the Act.
According to ss. 1(1) and (2), a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant, and harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not serious harm unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.
In the case Undre & Down to Earth (London) Ltd v. The London Borough of Harrow (2016), a trial of preliminary issues in a libel action was put forward for the assessment of whether the words complained were of defamatory essence against the claimant company. The Court had to decide, using the serious harm criteria in Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, whether it caused serious harm.
Down to Earth was a restaurant that the Second Claimant Company ran and that belonged to the first claimant, Mr. Undre, in Kensington High Street. The first claimant was convicted in 2016 on charges relating to the mistreatment of a herd of cows he owned. In January 2014, the defendant published a news release that referred to the conviction but incorrectly mentioned that the neglect of the first claimant had led to the deaths of cows. The news article also described the claimant as cynical since he owned a restaurant that claimed to run on ethical principles.
The news release went viral and was spread on a national level. Soon after, the claimant sued for libel. The defendant made the offer to resolve the issue and make amends, but they stuck to their stance that the news release did not seriously harm anyone.
The Court found that the news release did not defame the company.
The news release did not imply that the restaurant, Down to Earth, was responsible for the animal welfare offenses of which the first claimant was convicted. There were no proofs that the restaurant suffered any material financial losses from such a news article. The other grounds of the claimant’s case also failed due to the lack of proof of loss or causation.
The legal reasoning
The core of the complaint put forward was that the news release falsely stated that the first claimant’s neglect had led to the deaths of three cows, when no such finding has been made. The claimant company alleged special damage from the publication but failed to provide any details. The company was not defamed by the news and the fact that it did not imply that the Down to Earth restaurant business was jointly responsible, in any shape or form, for the animal welfare offenses of which the first claimant was convicted.
The case was dismissed.
