“Unprofessional” website comment on Motown tribute band can be fair comment

1 December 2010 by

Updated – Spiller and another (Appellants) v Joseph and others (Respondents) [2010] UKSC 53 Read judgment / press summary

The Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal to  unanimously hold that the defence of fair comment should be open to a booking agent which said on its website that a Motown tribute band, the Gillettes, were “unprofessional”. The court has also renamed the defence “honest comment”.

The decision will be a relief to those who think that Britain’s libel laws are too tough and that the fair comment defence – an important element of free speech rights – has become too difficult to deploy. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court recommended in its judgment that the whole issue of fair comment should be reviewed by the Law Commission or an expert committee. Presumably, this will be on the agenda for Lord Neuberger’s upcoming review of libel law. The Guardian has commented on the judgment here.

The background to the case can be found here. Amongst others, the website words which The Gillettes are complaining about are: “Events is no longer able to accept bookings for this artist as The Gillettes c/o Craig Joseph are not professional enough to feature in our portfolio and have not been able to abide by the terms of their contract.”

In summary, the Supreme Court ruled (based on the court’s press summary):

The elements of the defence of fair comment had been set out by Lord Nicholls in the Hong Kong caseof Tse Wai Chun Paulv Albert Cheng [2001] EMLR777. His fourth proposition, namely that the comment must indicate in general terms the facts on which the comment is based, so that the reader was in a position to judge for himself how far the comment was well founded, had attracted criticism and was challenged by the appellants in this appeal [para 70].

The defence had originated in respect of comments about work products such as books and plays, which necessarily identified the product. It had been complicated by developments which extended the defence to cover the conduct of individuals, where this was of public interest. Sometimes the facts underlying the comment were notorious; at other times they might be only known to the person making the comment. The only defence to a bare comment which implied the existence of unidentified discreditable conduct was justification [para 89]. Fair comment could however be raised where the comment identified the subject matter general terms. Particulars could then be given in the defence which identified the features which led to the formation of the view expressed [para 96]. Lord Nicholls’ requirement, that readers should be in a position to evaluate the comments for themselves, could not be reconciled with the authorities [para 98]. This was so, even where the subject matter was not within the public domain. Today many people take advantage of the internet to make public comments and the defence would be robbed of much of its efficacy if readers had to be given detailed information to enable evaluation of the comment [para 99]. The fourth proposition should be re-written as follows:

‘Next, the comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based.’

The Supreme Court agreed that there was a case for reform of a number of aspects of the defence of fair comment which did not arise directly in this case [paras 112-116]. The whole area merited consideration by the Law Commission or an expert committee. The only more general reform being made by this judgment was the re-naming of the defence from ‘fair comment’ to ‘honest comment’ [para 117].

Applying the law to the facts of this case, the posting by the appellants referred to the breach of contract relating to the Bibis restaurant, and to the respondents’ email, and these facts could be relied on. The email arguably evidenced a contemptuous approach to the respondents’ contractual obligations to the appellants. The email as quoted arguably evidenced a contemptuous attitude to contracts in general. It would be a matter for the jury to decide whether the inaccuracy in the quotation made a significant difference [para 124]. The defence should therefore be reinstated.

Update, 2 December 2010 – Catherine Rhind has commented on the judgment on Inforrm’s Blog:

Despite branding the underlying dispute between the Motown Tribute Band “the Gillettes” and their entertainment booking service a “considerable … storm in a tea-cup”, the Supreme Court have broadened the scope and application of the defence of fair comment.

She comments that the judgment presents a “helpful simplification of this principle of the law of fair comment” but that certain aspects of the judges’ reasoning, such as the meaning of “general terms” may need clarification. The judgment raises “interesting issues which are ripe for reform” and also sees the Supreme Court entering “gently” into the political arena, suggesting that libel reform should arise from the Law Commission or an expert committee, rather than a consultation as has been suggested.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read More:

1 comment;

  1. James Wilson says:

    Again, the right decision on the facts, but the facts themselves were too limiting for any root and branch reform (which probably isn’t best done judicially anyway). It certainly wasn’t like the atrocious effort Eady J made with the British Chiropractors v Singh judgment, which (rightly) earned him a bruising battering from the Court of Appeal. Hence all the more need for a review by the Law Commission or whoever of the whole of libel law.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: