I think the headline is incorrect - it didn’t win the lawsuit, it just got past the preliminary hearing and to substantive arguments (https://caseboard.io/cases/75bb8071-86c7-4032-bd34-e9d66eed1249). AFAIU now both parties will argue whether the contents of the report are true.
Did the court conclude the accusations were false, or did they only say it was detamatory? I read the full article and the legalese hurts my head. So many words which mean nothing.
Same thing, defamation means that the one making the claim is unable to back them up with any evidence
I don’t think it does necessarily,
Meanings will be considered defamatory at common law if they “substantially affect in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards a Claimant, or have a tendency to do so”
This definition doesn’t consider the truth of the statement or even whether it is provable, merely whether it affects opinion.
AFAIU this ruling just means that the lawsuit can carry forward to substantive arguments.
Under this logix, saying something true would also be defamation, as long as it hurts the opinion of somebody else. This doesn’t check out.
I was also surprised about this, but I took this quote directly from the judgement in question. As I think about it, it starts to make more sense - literally, defamation is dis (break into pieces/remove/…) + famo (fame/reputation). The word itself only conveys that someone’s reputation was injured, not that it was injured unjustly. IIUC the words for “unjust defamation” are specifically libel and slander, under common law. I think it’s similar to how there’s “homicide” (the act of one person killing another) which can be legal (e.g. self-defense) or criminal (e.g. murder). At least that’s my understanding of it.
I’ve found the entire text of the judgement here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/3276.html
It’s also full of legalese, but as far as I understand the court did not rule on the verity of the statements, only on whether they are defamatory:
- Meanings will be considered defamatory at common law if they “substantially affect in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards a Claimant, or have a tendency to do so”
…
Conclusion:
…
- The meanings of both publications are of fact and both are defamatory at common law with a Chase level 2 meaning.
This just means that a lawsuit can move on to factual arguments (i.e. arguments about the truth of those statements). Whoever is more convincing to the judge will win. So IIUC at least, the headline of this post is incorrect.
