Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd
A newspaper can rely on qualified privilege for publishing a defamatory statement on a matter of public interest, if it acted responsibly, applying a list of factors.
Facts
Mr Reynolds had been Taoiseach, the prime minister of Ireland, until his government collapsed in 1994. The Sunday Times published an article in Britain suggesting that he had deliberately misled the Irish parliament and his cabinet colleagues, without including his explanation, which had been included in the Irish edition. He sued the newspaper for libel, and it argued that it was protected by qualified privilege for political discussion.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that there is no general category of qualified privilege for political information, but that a publication on a matter of public concern may be privileged if the publisher had a duty to publish it and the public had an interest in receiving it. Lord Nicholls set out ten factors to be taken into account, including the seriousness of the allegation, the nature of the information and its source, the steps taken to verify it, its urgency, whether comment was sought from the claimant, whether the article contained the gist of the claimant's side of the story, and the tone of the article. On the facts, the article was not privileged, because Mr Reynolds's account had been omitted. The defence has been replaced by section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013.
Related cases on defamation and privacy
- Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008
- 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
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.
