Case Law: “Spiller v Joseph – the New Defence of Honest Comment” – Catherine Rhind

3 December 2010 by

The Supreme Court yesterday handed down judgment in the case of Joseph v Spiller ([2010] UKSC 53), the first time it has considered a libel case since its inception. The panel consisted of Lords Phillips, Rodger, Walker and Brown and Sir John Dyson.  There is the usual useful press summary. The background to the case has already been covered in a previous case preview on this blog and the background facts and the case history are not repeated in this post.

Despite branding the underlying dispute between the Motown Tribute Band “the Gillettes” and their entertainment booking service aconsiderable … storm in a tea-cup”, the Supreme Court have broadened the scope and application of the defence of fair comment. The Supreme Court did so by reducing the burden formerly placed on defendants to identify facts they are commenting on with ‘sufficient particularity’. Lord Phillips also re-named the defence as “honest comment” (as opposed to Court of Appeal in BCA v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350, which favoured “honest opinion” [35]) and called on the Law Commission to consider and review the present state of the defence.


The defence of fair comment is often thought of as one of the most complex areas of defamation law. The name itself is misleading and the principles of the defence lack clarity.  They have been difficult to apply to the myriad of different types of circumstances in which the defence can be invoked, particularly in light of the digital age and revolution of blogging and online media. Part of the reason for this is the defence’s origins, which lie in times when Lord Walker says that the written word was only placed before and valued by “a relatively small educated and socially elevated class” [130]. Lord Walker acknowledged that the law needed to evolve to reflect and apply usefully to communications via modern media.  Perhaps for these reasons the fair comment defence has become a hot topic for reform along with other areas of defamation law.

The Issues on Appeal

Two main issues arose on the appeal [31].  First: can defendants rely in support of a plea of fair comment on matters to which they made no reference in their comment?   In this context, the Court considered Lord Nicholls’ fourth principle in Tse Wai Chun PaulAlbert Cheng ([2001] EMLR 777):

the comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, what are the facts on which the comment is being made.  The reader or hearer ought to be in a position to judge for himself how far the comment was well founded.

The second issue considered was whether in the particular case the matters to which the defendants did refer in their comment were capable of sustaining a defence of fair comment.

The Judgment

In delivering the leading judgment (and re-instating the struck out defence of fair comment in the case) Lord Phillips conducted a full review of the authorities and concluded by endorsing Lord Nicholls’ summary of the elements of the defence in Tse Wai Chun PaulAlbert Cheng with one exception.   He concluded that the fourth proposition could not be reconciled with the decision of the House of Lords inKemsey v Foot ([1952] AC 345) and that

where adverse comment is made generally or generically on matters that are in the public domain I do not consider that it is a prerequisite of the defence of fair comment that the readers should be in a position to evaluate the comment for themselves [98]

Nevertheless, Lord Phillips remained fo the view that the comment must identify, at least in general terms, what it is that has led to the commentator to make the comment [104].

As a result, Lord Phillips re-wrote Lord Nicholls’ the fourth proposition to read:

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

The subject still needs to be identifiable but only now in “general terms”.

Lord Phillips went on to consider the general case for reform of this area of the law.   He noted that the reforms proposed by the defendant (and the media interveners) which involved an objective test, “would radically alter the nature of the defence of fair comment” [110]

He also considered whether the defence could apply to inferences of fact. He considered the position in Strasbourg point but rejected its reasoning in favour of the reasoning of Mr Justice Eady.  He makes the following observations:

Jurisprudence both in this jurisdiction and at Strasbourg – see Nilsen and Johnsen v Norway (1999) 30 EHRR 878, para 50 – has held that allegations of motive, which is inherently incapable of verification, can constitute comment. Some decisions have gone further and treated allegations of verifiable fact as comment, see for instance the Privy Council in Jeyaretnam v Goh Chok Tong [1989] 1 WLR 1109. It is questionable whether this is satisfactory. Prejudiced commentators can draw honest inferences of fact, such as that a man charged with fraud is guilty of fraud. Should the defence of fair comment apply to such inferences? Allegations of fact can be far more damaging, even if plainly based on inference, than comments on true facts. Eady J has twice held that the defence of fair comment cannot apply where the defamatory sting is a matter of verifiable fact –Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) and British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2009] EWHC 1101 (subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal). [114]

There were other observations made in the judgment on the subject of reform of fair comment and libel laws more generally such as widening the scope of the defence of “honest comment” by removing the public interest requirement [113]. However most notable were Lord Phillips’ comments at [116] on juries in defamation trials and his suggestion that now could be the time to remove them, given that defamation cases often involve complex issues, too complex for juries, and juries themselves invite expensive interlocutory battles.

In relation to reform, Lord Phillips concluded that

These are difficult questions. Some may have to be resolved judicially, but the whole area merits consideration by the Law Commission, or an expert committee [117]


The Supreme Court’s judgment presents a helpful simplification of this principle of the law of fair comment.  It may, however, be necessary to have further clarification as to the meaning of “general terms” in future cases.  Lord Phillips did attempt to go some way towards defining this term in the judgment by providing the example of a man who writes that “a barrister is a disgrace to his profession” in so doing Lord Phillips says that he should make it clear why he has reached that conclusion whether it be because “he does not deal honestly with the court, or does not read his papers thoroughly, or refuses to accept legally aided work, or is constantly late for court, or wears dirty collars and bands”. [103]

The judgment has gone some way to clarify what the defendant needs to show if he wants to use the defence of “honest comment”. It has also extended the potential application of the defence for the defendant whilst retaining and ensuring an element of protection remains for the claimant.

The judgment has also raised many interesting issues which are ripe for reform. It will be interesting to see whether the application of the new defence broadens its application in practice – will the media and online communities and bloggers see this as an opportunity to hide behind more robust commentary?

It is interesting to note that Supreme Court made no reference to 2010′s other leading “fair comment” case – BCA v Singh ([2010] EWCA Civ 350).  Lord Phillips makes a passing reference to the first instance decision in that case, noting in parenthesis “(subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal)” – but does not otherwise mention the Court of Appeal’s judgment.  As already mentioned, he ignores that Court’s view that the defence should be renamed “honest opinion”, favouring instead, “honest comment”

The final point is that the Supreme Court appears to have entered gently into political arena. Lord Lester’s Libel reform bill was proposed and then withdrawn on assurances from the coalition government that they would introduce a consultation and new bill. The Supreme Court has suggested the alternative course of the Law Commission or an expert committee.  It seems unlikely that this suggestion will be taken up by Government.

This post first appeared on Inforrm’s Blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks.

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 coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid 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: