| Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Full case name | Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others |
| Decided | 1999 |
| Citation | [1999] UKHL 45, [1999] 4 All ER 609, [2001] 2 AC 127 |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions | [1998] EMLR 723 [1998] 3 WLR 862 |
| Subsequent action | [2001] 2 AC 127 (HL) |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Court of Appeal: Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ, Hirst and Robert Walker LJJ House of Lords: Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Steyn, Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough |
| Keywords | |
| defamation, public interest | |
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd was a House of Lords case in English defamation law concerning qualified privilege for publication of defamatory statements in the public interest. The case provided the Reynolds defence, which could be raised where it was clear that the journalist had a duty to publish an allegation even if it turned out to be wrong.
In adjudicating on an attempted Reynolds defence a court would investigate the conduct of the journalist and the content of the publication. The subsequent case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe[1] affirmed the defence, which was subsequently raised successfully in several defamation proceedings.[2][3][4] The defence was abolished by s4(6) Defamation Act 2013, being replaced with the statutory defence of publication on a matter of public interest.[5]
- ^ [2006] UKHL 44
- ^ Roberts v Gable [2007] EWCA Civ 721
- ^ Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1007
- ^ Al-Fagih v HH Saudi Research & Marketing (UK) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1634
- ^ Barker, David (5 June 2020). "Public interest defence to defamation clarified". OUT-LAW. Pinsent Masons LLP. Retrieved 7 June 2020.