Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. et al., (1999) 250 N.R. 1 (HL)

• Case Date: October 28, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 250 N.R. 1 (HL)

Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. (1999), 250 N.R. 1 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Reynolds (respondent) v. Times Newspapers Limited and others

(appellants)

Indexed As: Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. et al.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

October 28, 1999.

Summary:

In 1994 the prime minister of Ireland (Reynolds) resigned during a political crisis. A few days later, the Sunday Times pub­lished an article dealing with the resignation and commenting on Reynolds' conduct. Reynolds commenced libel proceedings against the author of the article, the editor and the publisher, Times Newspapers Ltd. Reynolds was substantially unsuccessful at trial. Reynolds appealed and the defendants cross-appealed.

The Court of Appeal, in a decision re­ported [1998] 3 W.L.R. 862, allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict below and ordered a new trial. The court ruled, inter alia, that the defendants would not be able to rely on qualified privilege at the retrial. The defendants appealed the ruling on the avail­ability of qualified privilege.

The House of Lords, Lord Steyn and Lord Hope of Craighead, dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2861

Defences - Justification or truth - General -The House of Lords, per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, stated that "publication of a statement adversely affecting a person's reputation is actionable. The plaintiff is not required to prove that the words are false. Nor, in the case of publication in a written or permanent form, is he required to prove he has been damaged ... 'the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he does not or ought not to possess'. Truth is a complete defence. If the defendant proves the substantial truth of the words complained of, he thereby establishes the defence of justification ..." - See para­graph 7.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2921

Defences - Absolute privilege - General - [See first Libel and Slander - Topic 2981 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2981

Defences - Qualified privilege - General - The House of Lords, per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, stated that the defence of honest comment on a matter of public interest did not cover defamatory state­ments of fact - However there are circum­stances where the interests of society call for frank communication on questions of fact even if those views are defamatory and cannot be proved to be true - When the interest is of sufficient importance to outweigh the need to protect reputation, the occasion is regarded as privileged - Sometimes the need for uninhibited ex­pres­sion is of such a high order that the oc­casion attracts absolute privilege (e.g., statements made by judges or advocates or witnesses in judicial proceedings) - More usually, the privilege is qualified in that it can be defeated if the plaintiff proves the defendant was actuated by malice - See paragraphs 13 and 14.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2981

Defences - Qualified privilege - General - The House of Lords discussed the matter of qualified privilege where publication of political information is made to the world at large such as in a newspaper - The court rejected the concept of a generic common law qualified privilege which would auto­matically apply to all publica­tions of politi­cal discussion or information - Rather, the courts would decide when qualified privi­lege attached to such matters - The court discussed the test for deter­mining when qualified privilege would attach to political discussion in the media - See paragraphs 1 to 176.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2983

Defences - Qualified privilege - When available - [See second Libel and Slan­der - Topic 2981 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2986.1

Defences - Qualified privilege - Political expression - In 1994 the prime minister of Ireland (Reynolds) resigned during a pol­iti­cal crisis - A few days later, the Sunday Times published an article dealing with the resignation and commenting on Reynolds' conduct - Reynolds commenced libel pro­ceedings against the author of the article, the editor and the publisher of the news­paper - The House of Lords ruled that the newspaper could not rely on the defence of qualified privilege - The court noted that the serious allegations by the newspaper presented as statements of fact but shorn of all mention of Reynold's considered ex­planation, were not information the public had a right to know - See paragraphs 60 to 62.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2986.1

Defences - Qualified privilege - Political expression - In 1994 the prime minister of Ireland (Reynolds) resigned during a pol­iti­cal crisis - The Sunday Times published an article dealing with the resignation and commenting on Reynolds' conduct - Reynolds commenced libel proceedings against the newspaper - The newspaper argued that there should be an incremental development of the common law by the creation of a new category of occasion when privilege derives from the subject matter alone, i.e., political information - The newspaper argued that malice apart, publication of political information should be privileged regardless of the status and source of the material and the circum­stances of publication - The House of Lords rejected the newspaper's argument - See paragraphs 38 to 52.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2986.1

Defences - Qualified privilege - Political expression - [See second Libel and Slander - Topic 2981 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2988

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of -Lack of honest belief or existence of malice - [See first Libel and Slander - Topic 2981 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2988

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Lack of honest belief or existence of malice - The House of Lords discussed what constituted malice such as to result in a loss of qualified privilege - The court stated that the motive with which the statement was made is crucial - If desire to injure was the dominant motive the privi­lege is lost - There would be a simi­lar result if the maker of the statement did not believe the statement to be true, or if he made the statement recklessly, without considering or caring whether it was true or not - See paragraph 15.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3107

Defences - Fair comment - Elements - Honest expression of opinion - The House of Lords discussed the defence of com­ment on a matter of public interest (i.e., when a matter affects people at large then it is a matter of public interest on which every­one is entitled to make fair comment) - The court noted that traditionally one of the ingredients of this defence was fair­ness; however, this test has become meaningless and misleading - Rather the true test is whether the opinion expressed, however exaggerated, obstinate or preju­diced, is honestly held by the person ex­pressing it - There is however a constraint on this defence (i.e., the comment must represent the honest belief of its author - if the author was actuated by malice, this ground of defence will fail) - See para­graphs 9 to 12.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3108

Defences - Fair comment - Elements - Public interest - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 3107 ].

Cases Noticed:

McPherson v. Daniels (1829), 10 B. & C. 263, refd to. [para. 7].

Campbell v. Spottiswoode (1863), 3 B. & S. 769, refd to. [para. 9].

London Artists Ltd. v. Littler, [1969] 2 Q.B. 375 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Silkin v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd., [1958] 1 W.L.R. 743, refd to. [paras. 10, 64].

Toogood v. Spyring (1834), 1 Cr. M. & R. 181, refd to. [para. 13].

Davies v. Snead (1870), L.R. 5 Q.B. 608, refd to. [para. 13].

Horrocks v. Lowe, [1975] A.C. 135 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 15, 106, 159, 172].

Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 16, 87, 95, 136].

London Association for Protection of Trade v. Greenlands Ltd., [1916] 2 A.C. 15 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 18, 123].

Cox v. Feeney (1863), 4 F. & F. 13 (N.P.), refd to. [para. 19].

Purcell v. Sowler (1877), 2 C.P.D. 215 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Allbutt v. General Council of Medical Education and Registration (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 400 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Perera v. Peiris, [1949] A.C. 1 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 20, 121, 139, 172].

Wason v. Walter (1868), L.R. 4 Q.B. 73, refd to. [paras. 21, 124].

Webb v. Times Publishing Co., [1960] 2 Q.B. 535, refd to. [para. 22].

Blackshaw v. Lord, [1984] Q.B. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 23, 76, 114, 172].

Braddock v. Bevins, [1948] 1 K.B. 580 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 24, 114, 153].

Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd. et al., [1993] A.C. 534; 150 N.R. 69 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 25, 64].

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, refd to. [paras. 29, 68, 101, 175].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning (1995), 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), 6 S.C.C. 632 (India), refd to. [para. 34].

Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corp. (1997), 189 C.L.R. 520 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 35, 71, 98].

National Media Ltd. v. Bogoshi, [1998] 4 S.A. 1196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Lange v. Atkinson, [1998] 3 N.Z.L.R. 424 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 37, 71, 98].

Lange v. Atkinson et al. (1999), 250 N.R. 58 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 37, 98].

Lingens v. Austria (1986), 8 E.H.R.R. 407, refd to. [paras. 53, 85].

De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium (1997), 25 E.H.R.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 53, 84].

Thorgeirson v. Iceland (1992), 14 E.H.R.R. 843, refd to. [para. 54].

United Kingdom (Attorney General) v. Observer Ltd. et al., [1990] 1 A.C. 109; 99 N.R. 241 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 64, 152].

Attorney General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (No. 2) - see United Kingdom (At­torney General) v. Observer Ltd. et al.

Broome v. Cassell & Co., [1972] A.C. 1027 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 65].

Gertz v. Welch (Robert) Inc. (1974), 418 U.S. 323, refd to. [para. 68].

Lange v. Atkinson, [1997] 2 N.Z.L.R. 22, refd to. [paras. 71, 98].

Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., [1968] 2 Q.B. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

Goodwin v. United Kingdom (1996), 22 E.H.R.R. 123, refd to. [paras. 74, 105].

Herbert v. Lando (1979), 441 U.S. 153, refd to. [para. 74].

Castells v. Spain (1992), 14 E.H.R.R. 445, refd to. [para. 84].

Oberschlick v. Austria (1991), 19 E.H.R.R. 389, refd to. [para. 85].

Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (No. 2) (1991), 14 E.H.R.R. 229, refd to. [para. 85].

Hebditch v. MacIlwaine, [1894] 2 Q.B. 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Minter v. Priest, [1930] A.C. 558 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 87].

Kingshott v. Associated Kent Newspapers Ltd., [1991] 1 Q.B. 88 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 87, 126].

Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd., [1995] 1 A.C. 321; 170 N.R. 383 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 95].

United States v. Associated Press (1943), 52 F.Supp. 362, refd to. [para. 100].

Abrams v. United States (1919), 250 U.S. 616, refd to. [para. 100].

X Ltd. v. Morgan Grampian (Publishers) Ltd. et al., [1991] 1 A.C. 1; 110 N.R. 367 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 105].

Maxwell v. Pressdram Ltd., [1987] 1 W.L.R. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

Spring v. Guardian Assurance plc et al., [1995] 2 A.C. 296; 174 N.R. 164 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 106].

Theophanous v. Herald & Weekly Times Ltd. (1994), 182 C.L.R. 104 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 109].

Stephens v. West Australian Newspapers Ltd. (1994), 182 C.L.R. 211 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 109].

Templeton v. Jones, [1984] 1 N.Z.L.R. 448 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 112].

Duncombe v. Daniell (1837), 8 C. & P. 222, refd to. [paras. 114, 143].

Plummer v. Charman, [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1469 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

Lang v. Willis (1934), 52 C.L.R. 637, refd to. [para. 114].

Douglas v. Tucker, [1952] 1 D.L.R. 657 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 114].

Globe and Mail Ltd. v. Boland (1960), 22 D.L.R.(2d) 277 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 114].

Jones v. Bennett (1968), 2 D.L.R.(3d) 291 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 114].

Lawson v. Chabot (1974), 48 D.L.R.(3d) 556 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 114].

Bradney v. Virtue (1909), 28 N.Z.L.R. 828, refd to. [para. 114].

Truth (N.Z.) Ltd. v. Holloway, [1960] N.Z.L.R. 69 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 114, 172].

Dunford Publicity Studios Ltd. v. News Media Ownership Ltd., [1971] N.Z.L.R. 961, refd to. [para. 114].

Brooks v. Muldoon, [1973] 1 N.Z.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 114].

John v. MGN Ltd., [1997] Q.B. 586, refd to. [para. 127].

Penn and Mead's Case (1670), 6 State Tr. 951, refd to. [para. 127].

Bushell's Case (1670), 6 State Tr. 999, refd to. [para. 127].

Anderson v. Hunter (1891), 18 R. (Ct. of Sess.) 467, refd to. [para. 144].

Bruce v. Leisk (1892), 19 R. (Ct. of Sess.) 482, refd to. [para. 144].

Brims v. Reid & Sons (1885), 12 R. (Ct. of Sess.) 1016, refd to. [para. 144].

McKerchar v. Cameron (1892), 19 R. (Ct. of Sess.) 383, refd to. [para. 144].

Clark v. Molyneux (1877), 3 Q.B.D. 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 160].

Statutes Noticed:

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953), Cmd. 8969, art. 10 [paras. 40, 64].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Torts (Second) (1977), ch. 26, para. 619 [paras. 87, 161]; commentaries, subs. (1), (2) [para. 87].

Barendt, Eric, et al., Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect (1997), pp. 191, 192 [para. 73].

Carter-Ruck on Libel and Slander (5th Ed. 1997), pp. 105, 106, 107 [para. 105].

Duncan and Neill on Defamation (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 58 to 62 [para. 11].

Fleming, John, Libel and Constitutional Free Speech, in Essays for Patrick Atiyah (1991), pp. 333, 337, 345 [para. 74].

Gatley on Libel and Slander (9th Ed. 1998), paras. 15.5, note 43 [para. 126]; 34.15 [para. 126].

Kentridge, Sydney, Freedom of Speech: Is it the Primary Right (Francis Mann Lec­ture) (1996), 45 I.C.L.Q. 253, p. 268 [para. 101].

Tilbury, Michael, Uniformity, The Consti­tution and Australian Defamation Law at the Turn of the Century, in Torts To­mor­row: A Tribute to John Fleming (1998), p. 244 [para. 77].

United Kingdom, Report of the Committee on Defamation (1975), Cmnd. 5909, generally [para. 28].

United Kingdom, Report of the Committee on the Law of Defamation (1948), Cmd. 7536, generally [para. 27].

United Kingdom, Report of the Supreme Court Procedure Committee on Practice and Procedure in Defamation (1991), generally [para. 29].

Weir, A Casebook on Tort (8th Ed. 1996), pp. 525, 528, 530 [para. 73].

Counsel:

Not disclosed.

Agents:

Not disclosed.

This appeal was heard before Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craig­head and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough of the House of Lords.

On October 28, 1999, the decision of the House of Lords was delivered and the fol­lowing speeches were given:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead - see para­graphs 1 to 62;

Lord Steyn, dissenting - see paragraphs 63 to 93;

Lord Cooke of Thorndon - see para­graphs 94 to 130;

Lord Hope of Craighead, dissenting - see paragraphs 131 to 165;

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - see paragraphs 166 to 176.