Telnikoff v Matusevitch [1992] 2 AC 343

• Plaintiff had written an article complaining about the number of BBC correspondents in Russia who came from minority groups. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff advocated blood tests for correspondents and would sack all ethnic minority reporters.

• Plaintiff sued Defendant for defamation.

• HL allowed Plaintiff’s claim and rejected a defence of fair comment because, in the absence of words like “in effect” or “therefore I believe he is advocating…” - the claims about Plaintiff were stated as facts and not opinions.

Lord Keith

• Whether Defendant’s claims were statements of fact or opinion is to be assessed without reference to Plaintiff’s article.

• Looked at baldly, Defendant’s words conveyed supposed facts and not mere opinion.

• If a statement that was purely comment/didn’t state false facts, Defendant did not have to prove that he honestly held that view nor that his view was objectively fair. The only way “fair comment” can be overcome, assuming it contains no false statements of fact, is to show that Defendant’s dominant purpose was malice. 

Lord Ackner (dissenting)

• To find defamation here will act as a deterrent to the publication of letters and place a heavy burden on editors.