Judgment Summary: Millett v Corbyn [2020] EWHC 1848 (QB)

This is a judgment on meaning in a libel claim between the blogger Richard Millett, and Jeremy Corbyn MP, former leader of the Labour Party.

The complaint stems from an interview given on the BBC Andrew Marr Show, when Corbyn was still the leader of the party. A video had surfaced of a meeting from 2013, in which Corbyn had described people who had attended a meeting as “not understanding English irony.” There was a public row about whether this statement was a form of antisemitism, and Andrew Marr asked Corbyn about this. In his response, Corbyn said that he was responding to people who has been “disruptive” and “abusive” in the meeting. Continue reading “Judgment Summary: Millett v Corbyn [2020] EWHC 1848 (QB)”

The Man on the Clapham Omnibus

Lord Reed, in Healthcare at Home Limited v The Common Services Agency [2014] UKSC 49:

1. The Clapham omnibus has many passengers. The most venerable is the reasonable man, who was born during the reign of Victoria but remains in vigorous health. Amongst the other passengers are the right-thinking member of society, familiar from the law of defamation, the officious bystander, the reasonable parent, the reasonable landlord, and the fair-minded and informed observer, all of whom have had season tickets for many years.

2. The horse-drawn bus between Knightsbridge and Clapham, which Lord Bowen is thought to have had in mind, was real enough. But its most famous passenger, and the others I have mentioned, are legal fictions. They belong to an intellectual tradition of defining a legal standard by reference to a hypothetical person, which stretches back to the creation by Roman jurists of the figure of the bonus paterfamilias. As Lord Radcliffe observed in Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] AC 696, 728:

“The spokesman of the fair and reasonable man, who represents after all no more than the anthropomorphic conception of justice, is and must be the court itself.”

3. It follows from the nature of the reasonable man, as a means of describing a standard applied by the court, that it would misconceived for a party to seek to lead evidence from actual passengers on the Clapham omnibus as to how they would have acted in a given situation or what they would have foreseen, in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen. Even if the party offered to prove that his witnesses were reasonable men, the evidence would be beside the point. The behaviour of the reasonable man is not established by the evidence of witnesses, but by the application of a legal standard by the court. The court may require to be informed by evidence of circumstances which bear on its application of the standard of the reasonable man in any particular case; but it is then for the court to determine the outcome, in those circumstances, of applying that impersonal standard.

4. In recent times, some additional passengers from the European Union have boarded the Clapham omnibus. This appeal is concerned with one of them: the reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderer.

Judgment Summary: Serafin v Malkiewicz

How is ‘reasonable belief’ to be determined when running a defence under s.4 of the Defamation Act 2013. What standards are appropriate to apply to a small community newspaper?

This dispute in defamation has two judgments (so far) and is to be heard  by the UK Supreme Court.

The claimant, Mr Jan Serafin, is a businessmen of Polish origin, active in the Polish community in London. The defendants are Grzegorz Malkiewicz and Teresa Bazarnik-Malkiewicz also of Polish origin, and publish Nowy Czas, a Polish language newspaper serving the Polish community living in the UK. Continue reading “Judgment Summary: Serafin v Malkiewicz”