RACHEL RILEY v MICHAEL SIVIER
[2023] EWCA Civ 71
Arron Banks v Carole Cadwalladr
28 February 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 219
Court of Appeal
Someone (Banks) sued a journalist (Cadwalladr) for saying bad things about him online, the judge originally said it was okay for the journalist to say these things, but the appeals court said that saying the things later caused serious harm to Banks' reputation, so that part is now wrong. However, another part of the claim, about a tweet, was not serious enough.
Key Facts
- •Arron Banks (Claimant/Appellant) sued Carole Cadwalladr (Defendant/Respondent) for libel over a TED Talk and a tweet.
- •The publications suggested Banks secretly broke electoral funding laws by taking money from a foreign power and lied about it.
- •Official investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing.
- •Cadwalladr apologized but relied on the public interest defence under the Defamation Act 2013.
- •The trial judge dismissed both claims, finding the TED Talk's initial publication caused serious harm but was protected by the public interest defence; later publication didn't cause serious harm.
- •The Tweet didn't cause serious harm.
- •Banks appealed.
Legal Principles
Serious harm requirement for defamation: A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation.
Section 1(1) Defamation Act 2013
Public interest defence: It's a defence to show the statement was on a matter of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed publishing it was in the public interest.
Section 4(1) Defamation Act 2013
Continuing publication: A public interest defence can expire if circumstances change, making the defendant's belief in the public interest unreasonable. Serious harm must be assessed for each phase of publication.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB)
Assessment of serious harm: The scale of publication is a relevant factor, considering the total number of publications. Pre-existing bad reputation (limited to the relevant sector) is relevant, but not evidence of earlier publications of the same allegation.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27, Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1964] AC 371
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in respect of the TED Talk for publication after 29 April 2020.
The judge's errors undermined her conclusion. The inherent gravity of the allegation, its tendency to cause serious reputational harm, and the scale of publication after the change of circumstances inevitably lead to the conclusion that serious harm was caused.
Appeal dismissed in respect of the Tweet.
The judge correctly found that the Tweet's publication peaked initially and diminished over time, offering no basis to infer serious harm from publication after 29 April 2020.