Multiple publication

Multiple Publication At common law, the rule in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185 established that each individual publication of a libel gives rise to a separate cause of action, subject to its own limitation period; hence, if the same publication is read many years later, that is a new publication giving rise to a new cause of action. It has been abolished in Ireland by section 11 of the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here), which provides:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person has one cause of action only in respect of a multiple publication.

(2) A court may grant leave to a person to bring more than one defamation action in respect of a multiple publication where it considers that the interests of justice so require.

(3) In this section “multiple publication” means publication by a person of the same defamatory statement to 2 or more persons (other than the person in respect of whom the statement is made) whether contemporaneously or not.

Moreover section 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (Defamation) 2009 (SI No 511 of 2009) provides for procedures relating to applications under section 11, though I am not aware of any caselaw yet on that section.…

The UK’s libel reform proposals are a good start

15 March, 201116 November, 2015

| 11 Comments

| Defamation, Libel tourism, Multiple publication

The UK’s Ministry of Justice has announced its long-awaited consultation on the reform of the UK’s libel laws. Much of the territory covered by draft Defamation Bill was covered in Ireland by the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here), though there are some important differences as well. In this post, I want briefly to compare and contrast the UK Bill [the Bill] with the Irish Act [the Act]. To spoil the conclusion (for those of you who won’t read further than this opening paragraph) the Bill is largely in line the Act, and, in this respect, I am reminded of the Irish adage “tosach maith, leath na h-oibre“: a good start is half the work. In the end, that is what the Bill is: a good start.

Similarities
Clause 2 of the Bill provides for a defence of responsible publication on matter of public interest. In many ways, this analagous to the defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest contained in section 26 of the Act. But clause 2 is a far less mealy mouthed version of the defence than the unworkably narrow section 26 is: there are fewer hurdles to be jumped by a defendant seeking to rely upon it.…

SI No 511 of 2009: Rules of the Superior Courts (Defamation) 2009

11 January, 201024 October, 2011

| 1 Comment

| Defamation, Defamation Act 2009, Multiple publication

One of the reasons for delaying the coming into effect of the Defamation Act, 2009 from 23 July 2009 when it was signed by the President until 1 January 2010 was the need to amend the Rules of the Superior Court to provide for the changes to practice and procedure which it requires. Those changes are effected by SI No 511 of 2009: Rules of the Superior Courts (Defamation) 2009 (pdf). It inserts a new Order 1B in, and amend Order 22, Order 36 and Appendix B, Part II of the Rules of the Superior Court) to facilitate the operation of the Defamation Act, 2009. In particular, it makes provision for

verifying affidavits under section 8,
the procedures relating to various applications under sections 11 (multiple publication), 14 (meaning), 33 (prohibition order), and 34 (summary application), and under section 11(2)(c) of the Statute of Limitations 1957 (as amended by section 38),
applications under section 23 relating to offers of amends,
notification of evidence of apology under section 24, and
particulars of evidence in mitigation (amending Order 22 RSC).

…

Libel tourism, online defamation and multiple publication

22 September, 200916 November, 2015

| 3 Comments

| Defamation, Libel tourism, libel tourism, Multiple publication

In the UK, the Ministry for Justice has just begun a consultation process seeking views on the “multiple publication rule” at common law under which each publication of defamatory material can form the basis of a new defamation claim, and in particular on the effects of this rule in relation to online archives. If this rule is reformed, then a major plank of the libel tourism phenomenon, by which London has become the libel capital of the Western world and home to libel actions that have little to do with its jurisdiction, will quite properly have been removed (see BBC | ComputerWorld | Greenslade | Guardian | Index on Censorship Free Speech blog | Information Overlord | OUT.law | Slaw | TechWatch | Times Online).

The multiple publication rule was established in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185 (already discussed on this blog), reaffirmed in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers [2002] QB 783, [2001] EWCA Civ 1805 (05 December 2001), and upheld by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos 1 and 2) v the United Kingdom Applications 3002/03 and 23676/03, [2009] ECHR 451 (10 March 2009).…

Article 10 and the Duke of Brunswick

11 March, 200925 August, 2020

| 10 Comments

| Defamation Bill 2006, ECHR, Freedom of Expression, Multiple publication

William VIII, Duke of Brunswick (pictured left; 1806-1884) was ruling duke of the Duchy of Brunswick from 1830 until his death. A famous eccentric, he bequeathed at least two interesting events to history. First, he lost a famous chess game to Paul Morphy (the Bobby Fischer of his era). Second, he won an infamous libel appeal which now governs internet publication at English and Irish law.

The rule in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185 is that each individual publication of a libel gives rise to a separate cause of action, subject to its own limitation period; it has been followed at the highest levels (Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] UKHL 25 (11 May 2000); Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575, [2002] HCA 56 (10 December 2002)) and in the online context (Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001] QB 201, [1999] EWHC QB 244 (26 March 1999); Dow Jones v Gutnick again). US law is different: a defamatory publication gives rise to a single cause of action for libel, which accrues at the time of the original publication, and that the statute of limitations runs from that date (see, eg, Gregoire v GP Putnam’s Sons 81 NE 2d 45 (1948)).…

cearta.ie

Category: Multiple publication