Defendant showed a programme portraying Plaintiff as an incompetent policeman.
Reviews of the programme in newspapers meant that the claim was repeated many times and Plaintiff sued Defendant for each repetition of the claim as a separate cause of damages.
Defendant sought to have all but the claim based on the TV programme itself struck out.
CA found for Plaintiff, REJECTING the argument that Defendant could not be liable for the repetition by any TP’s who was not their agent nor authorised to do so nor intended to do so.
The rules on third party repetition are the normal ones of novus actus interveniens, and on the facts of each case.
This is a question of remoteness of damages, depending on whether the damage was “foreseeable or a natural and probable consequence of the invitation to review that such reviews would include the sting of libel”.
If a repetition is “reasonably foreseeable” then it is not too remote for it to be sued upon as damage caused by Defendant.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.