Shah Muhammad v Daily The News International & Ors
[2023] EWHC 674 (KB)
Salman Iqbal v GEO TV Limited
27 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 3024 (KB)
High Court
A Pakistani news channel (GEO) broadcast accusations made at a political rally against another news channel's owner (Iqbal). Iqbal sued for libel. The court said there were too many unanswered questions about whether the broadcast was protected, and ordered a full trial to resolve the dispute.
Key Facts
- •Salman Iqbal, claimant, is the founder and president of ARY Digital Network, a leading Pakistani news broadcaster.
- •GEO TV Limited, defendant, is part of the Jang Group and broadcasts GEO News in the UK.
- •The case concerns libel proceedings related to GEO News broadcasts on May 19-20, 2022, about a PML-N political rally.
- •Maryam Nawaz Sharif, a prominent PML-N figure, made allegations at the rally about Iqbal's alleged gold smuggling and corrupt relationship with former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
- •GEO News broadcast these allegations, and Iqbal sued for libel.
- •The defendant applied for summary judgment based on the defence of statutory qualified privilege under s.15 of the Defamation Act 1996.
Legal Principles
Statutory qualified privilege under s.15 of the Defamation Act 1996 protects the publication of reports unless malice is shown.
Defamation Act 1996, s.15
A 'public meeting' for the purposes of qualified privilege is one bona fide and lawfully held for a lawful purpose and for the furtherance or discussion of a matter of public interest.
Defamation Act 1996, Schedule 1, para 12(2)
A 'report' for the purposes of qualified privilege can include live broadcasts if they provide a fair and accurate account of the proceedings.
Defamation Act 1996, s.15
For a report to be considered 'fair and accurate', it must be a fair presentation of what took place, conveying the impression the event would have made on a hearer, even if selective.
Cook v Alexander [1974] 2 QB 279
Publication must be of public interest and for public benefit (s.15(3)). This requires a balancing exercise between freedom of expression and the right to reputation.
Defamation Act 1996, s.15(3); Qadir v Associated Newspapers Limited [2012] EWHC 2064 (QB); Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing plc [1997] 1 All ER 655; Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror plc and others [2017] EWHC 1444 (QB)
Malice, meaning publishing a statement knowing it was false or being recklessly indifferent to its truth, is required to defeat qualified privilege.
Huda v Wells [2018] EMLR 7
Outcomes
The defendant's application for summary judgment was dismissed.
The court found that there were genuine disputes of fact regarding whether the rally was a public meeting, whether the broadcasts were fair and accurate reports, whether the publication was in the public interest and for the public benefit, and whether the broadcasts were made with malice. These issues needed to be resolved at trial.