Aquarella catalogo 2014 trial#

Their case was that the statements in the articles were not defamatory because they did not meet the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the Defamation Act of 2013.

Aquarella catalogo 2014 trial#

For the purpose of the trial of the issue of serious harm, which took place before the High Court in July 2015, the newspapers did not contest the primary facts set out in the claimant’s particulars of claim. In summary, the articles were held to have meant inter alia that the claimant had been violent and abusive towards his wife during their marriage, had hidden their son’s passport to stop her removing him from the UAE, had made use of UAE law and the UAE courts to deprive her of custody and contact with her son, had callously and without justification taken their son out of her possession, and then falsely accused her of abducting him. Those appeals arose out of two libel actions begun by him in the High Court on Decemagainst the publishers of the Independent and the Evening Standard, and a third begun on Januagainst the publisher of the I (newspaper).Īt the High Court during a meaning hearing it was held that the article in the Independent bore eight defamatory meanings and the article in the Evening Standard twelve. In January and February 2014, a number of British newspapers published articles making allegations about the claimant’s conduct towards his wife during the marriage and in the course of the divorce and custody proceedings. In October of that year, having found out where his son was, he took possession of him under the custody order. In February 2013, the claimant initiated a criminal prosecution against his wife for abduction. In August 2012, the UAE court awarded custody of to his father. In March 2012, the claimant’s wife went into hiding with in the UAE, claiming that she would not get a fair trial in its courts. The marriage broke down, and in April 2011 he began divorce proceedings in the UAE courts and sought custody of their son. The claimant was a French aerospace engineer who at the relevant time lived with his British wife in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Tort Law- defamation-libel- assessment of the harm to the claimant’s reputation- readers or hearers who had never heard of a claimant at the time- what was the impact of publications on those who did not know a claimant but might get to know them in future. Tort Law- defamation-libel- Dingle rule-effect of-what was the effect of the Dingle rule on defamatory statements. Tort Law- defamation-libel-repetition rule- impact on threshold of seriousness- what was a repetition rule in determining threshold of seriousness in defamatory statements and the policy behind it.

Tort Law- defamation-libel-statements that were actionable per se vis-à-vis those that were not- what was the effect of the distinction between a statement that was actionable per se from that which was not actionable per se. Tort Law- defamation-libel-threshold of serious harm- reference only to the inherent tendency of the words vis-à-vis investigation of the facts on the actual impact of the statement- what was the threshold that statements had to meet so as to cause serious harm to a person’s reputation or body trading for profit – Defamation Act, 2013, section 1(1). Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge & Lord Briggs BL v Independent Print Ltd and another UKSC 27