The Court of Appeal has delivered an important judgment on the qualified privilege that applies to various forms of reporting under s.15 of the Defamation Act 1996, which clarifies the approach to the section and should make it much easier to apply in future.
In a judgment in Iqbal v Geo TV Limited handed down on Friday, 13 December 2024, the Court of Appeal allowed Geo’s appeal against HHJ Lewis’s refusal to grant summary judgment on Geo’s defence of qualified privilege under s.15 of the 1996 Act.
Mr Iqbal, a prominent figure in Pakistani media and head of the ARY Digital Network and news channel, sued over a live broadcast by Geo of words spoken by a senior Pakistani politician speaking at a political rally in Pakistan, and Geo’s overnight hourly bulletins reporting on the speech.
Geo sought summary judgment on its defence of qualified privilege under s.15. At first instance, HHJ Lewis held that the broadcasts complained of were fair and accurate reports of a public meeting but refused the application on the basis that the Claimant had a real prospect of succeeding on s.15(3), in that the publications might fall outside of the privilege as being “not for the public benefit”. This was partly because he said it was relevant to consider what Geo knew or ought to have known, and this meant that it was also inappropriate to grant summary judgment on malice.
On appeal, Warby LJ, with whom Underhill and Dingemans LJJ agreed, rejected the Claimant’s contention that the case was inherently unsuitable for summary judgment and agreed with the judge below that the broadcasts were a fair and accurate report of proceedings at a public meeting (satisfying s.15(1)). He rejected the Claimant’s argument that live footage could not constitute a ‘report’ under the section.
Crucially, he ruled that the judge had been wrong to refuse to determine summarily the application of s.15(3), which excludes the privilege for “the publication of … matter which is not of public interest and the publication of which is not for the public benefit.” Contrary to the previously accepted view, Warby LJ held that these requirements were cumulative and a publisher need, therefore satisfy either to retain the privilege. The “public interest” requirement relates to the content and subject matter of the words and the topic with which they are concerned; as such, this report of a senior politician’s speech alleging bribery and corruption plainly satisfied the test.
Nothing more was necessary for Geo, but if it had been, the judge’s reasons for refusing to grant summary judgment on the “public benefit” requirement (the ‘status of the information’ and Geo’s actual or constructive knowledge) were wrong. ‘Public benefit’ may involve a broader, contextual evaluation of the circumstances than ‘public interest’, but not of the status of the information reported – when Parliament has determined the protected categories – nor of Geo’s state of mind.
Mr Iqbal’s case on malice was also held to be unsustainable. Relying on historic animosity between the parties and allegations of “at best careless or irresponsible journalism” did not meet the high bar for malice.
Adam Speker KC and Richard Munden (instructed by Carter Ruck) acted for the Appellant and Defendant Geo TV Limited. Jonathan Barnes KC and Gervase de Wilde (instructed by Gresham Legal) acted for the Respondent and Claimant, Mr Iqbal.
A full case report will appear on the 5RB website shortly.
The Court of Appeal has also published a summary of the judgment.
The hearing was livestreamed and can be watched here.