Berkoff v Burchill
A statement that holds a person up to ridicule or contempt can be defamatory, even if it does not suggest any moral fault.
Facts
Julie Burchill, a journalist, wrote in two film reviews that the actor Steven Berkoff was hideously ugly, and compared him with Frankenstein's monster. Mr Berkoff sued for libel. The question was whether a statement that a person is hideously ugly is capable of being defamatory.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held, by a majority, that the words were capable of being defamatory. Neill LJ said that a statement may be defamatory if it exposes the claimant to ridicule, or causes him to be shunned or avoided, even if it does not suggest that he has done anything wrong. Describing an actor, whose career depended partly on his appearance, as hideously ugly, in the context of the comparison with Frankenstein's monster, could expose him to ridicule. Millett LJ dissented, saying that the words were mere abuse and could not lower his reputation.
Related cases on defamation and privacy
- Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5, [2022] AC 1158
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1
- Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11, [2012] 2 AC 273
- Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 AC 359
- Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27, [2020] AC 612
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
