Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 2)

[2002] QB 783

Case summary last updated at 17/01/2020 19:48 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 2)

D published articles in a newspaper and on its internet site claiming that P was involved in criminal activities and P sued D for defamation. D tried to run the duty/interest defence so that qualified privilege would be established. CA allowed a qualified privilege under the duty-interest test: interest was that of the public in a modern democracy in free expression and in the promotion of a free and vigorous press to keep the public informed, and the corresponding duty on the journalist, and his editor, was to behave responsibly. On interest, the question is whether there was a public interest in the article, true or false, being published, NOT whether it was in the public interest to publish an untruth. However, the internet article did not receive privilege since it remained unchanged for over a year even when its falsehood was known, which failed to satisfy the responsible journalism duty. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>