Consent

It is a defence that the plaintiff has expressly or

impliedly consented to the publication complained of
where, for example, in a case of slander the aggrieved
party had invited the defendant to repeat the words
complained of before witnesses
 Apology
• Where there is apology and an acceptance
thereof the defendant can resist the plaintiff’s
suit for damages for defamation. The
publication of a contradiction and expression
of regret by itself is not tantamount to an
apology.
 Amends
• A party without serving a defence in defamation
proceeding, may offer to make amends. An offer to
make amends is an offer a) to make a suitable
correction of the statement complained of and a
sufficient apology to the aggrieved party, b) to
publish the correction and the apology in a manner
that is reasonable and practicable in the
circumstances, and c) to pay to the aggrieved party
such compensation ( if any,) and such costs, as may
be agreed or determined to be payable.
 Remedies for Defamation
• The publication of defamatory statements may
be restrained by injunction either under sec.
38 or 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
• The plaint ought to allege the publication of
defamatory statement, set out the actual
words used and also state that they were
published or spoken to some named
individuals and specify the time and place
when and where they were published.
 Who can sue?
• The publication of defamation can seldom give
a right of action to any one but the person
defamed.
• The Calcutta High Court permits the husband
to sue where un-chastity is imputed to his
wife.
• Damages for libel and slander– Damages
recoverable in an action for defamation will
depend upon the nature and character of the
libel, the extent of its circulation, the position
in life of parties, and the surrounding
circumstances of the case.
 Civil and Criminal Remedies
• The law grants both remedies to the wronged
person and a party who avails himself of one
remedy after another is entitled to get as
much compensation as he would otherwise
get
Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers ( 1986)

• Miss Rantzen, a presenter of the BBC Television

programme That's Life and the founder and
chairperson of the Childline charity for sexually
abused children, brought libel proceedings in respect
of articles published in the People on 3 February 1991.
• She alleged that the articles bore the meaning that
she, knowing that a teacher, Alex Standish, was guilty
of sexually abusing children, did not warn the
headteacher of the school, took no action and was
insincere and hypocritical.
• The newspaper pleaded justification and fair
comment. Her case was that she brought her
anxieties about Mr Standish to the attention of the
authorities and believed the police were keeping a
careful watch on him. The jury awarded her pounds
250,000.
• The Court of Appeal substituted the sum of pounds
110,000 for the pounds 250,000 damages for libel
awarded by a jury to Esther Rantzen. Leave to
appeal to the House of Lords was granted.
• LORD JUSTICE NEILL, giving the judgment of
the court, said that section 8 of the Courts and
Legal Services Act 1990 gave the Court of
Appeal the power to order a new trial on the
ground that damages awarded by a jury were
'excessive'. The Court of Appeal was
empowered, in place of ordering a new trial,
to substitute for the sum awarded 'such sum
as appeared to the court to be proper'. 
• It was necessary to examine those powers in
the light of the right to freedom of expression
in article 10 of the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. Where freedom of
expression was at stake, article 10 could be
regarded as an articulation of some of the
principles underlying the common law.
• The Court of Appeal has laid down the
principles on which compensatory and
exemplary damages should be allowed in an
action on libel.
• In compensatory damage the sum must
compensate him for damage to his reputation;
vindicate his good name; and take account of
distress, hurt and humiliation which the
defamatory publication has caused.
• Gravity of the libel,the more closely it touches the
plaintiff’s integrity, professional reputation, honour,
loyalty and the core attributes of his personality, the
more serious it is likely to be.
• The extent of publication
• Aggravation of damages The violence of the
defendant’s language, the nature of the imputation
conveyed, and the fact that the defamation was
deliberate and malicious will enhance the damages.
 Mitigation of damages
• 1) Evidence falling short of justification 2)
absence of malice 3) apology at the earliest
opportunity, 4) retaliation by defendant,
plaintiff being in the habit of libeling the
defendant 5) provocation by plaintiff 6) bad
reputation of plaintiff
 Injunction
• Injunction can be granted only if there is some
likelihood of immediate and pressing injury to
person or property of the plaintiff.
• Joint Action – An action for slander cannot be
brought jointly against several defendants;
separate actions should be brought against
each.
• But an action for slander may be brought
jointly against several defendants where the
words spoken are not actionable per se, but
only become so by reason of the special
damage, which is the result of the conjoint
action of all the defendants.
• In libel, each person is liable for the entire
publication, and therefore all may be properly
sued together.
• In a case of joint publication the malice of one of
the defendants cannot be imputed to another.
• If several persons are libelled by the publication
of a statement all of them cannot bring joint
action against the defendant but must sue him
separately.
• Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation
(SLAPP)?