Milne v Express Newspapers Ltd [2005] 1 WLR 772
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:03:50 UTC
Defendant made a false claim about Plaintiff and offered to make amends under s.2 of Defamation Act 1996 which Plaintiff rejected, so that Defendant claimed a defence under s.4(2) of the act.
Plaintiff sought to rebut this defence by saying that Defendant had reason to believe that facts to be false so that s.4(3) applied.
CA found for Defendant, saying that s.4(3) only applied where Defendant knew the facts were false, NOT that he ought to have known of the facts.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Joyce v Sengupta
Plaintiff was falsely accused by Defendant in an article of stealing from the royal family. She brought a claim in malicious falsehood (as she couldn’t afford a claim in libel - trials are longer) ev...
Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons
Defendant paid Plaintiff, solicitors, to take over a company for them. After completion, Defendant became aware of several claims that could be made against them as a result of the takeover agreement...
Newstead v London Express
Defendant reported the trial of bigamy of X, who had the same name and age as Plaintiff. Because of the lack of particularity in Defendant’s description of X, many people thought that Plaintiff was b...
Horrocks v Lowe
At a Local Council meeting, Defendant, one councillor, accused another, Plaintiff, of misleading one of the property committee of which he was chairman. Defendant wanted Plaintiff to be removed from...
Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson
Defendant was to sell X a car, for which X would pay the deposit and Plaintiff would pay the balance. X was to repay Plaintiff through instalments, but defaulted and wrongfully sold the car. After su...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.