- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, a local authority, issued proceedings for damages in libel against the Respondents, the publisher of a national newspaper, its editor and two journalists, after the publication of articles on 17 and 24 September 1989 questioning the propriety of investments made from the Appellant’s superannuation fund. Separate actions by two named individuals mentioned in the articles were also commenced; one of those individual actions settled.
The High Court (before Judge Morland) held that the Appellant could maintain an action in libel. On appeal, the Court of Appeal (Balcombe, Ralph Gibson and Butler-Sloss LJJ) reversed that decision, holding that a corporate public authority has no such right. The Appellant obtained leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The present judgment concerns that appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under the common law of England, a democratically elected local authority may sue for damages for libel in respect of words reflecting on its governmental and administrative functions.
- Whether denying such a right is consistent with the need to protect freedom of expression, as recognised both at common law and—although not directly incorporated—under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- Whether earlier authorities suggesting that a local authority could sue for libel (notably Bognor Regis UDC v Campion) should be followed or overruled.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Manchester Corporation v Williams [1891] 1 Q.B. 94 | A corporation may sue only for libels affecting property, not personal reputation. | Considered; treated as illustrating historic limits on corporate libel actions and ultimately not followed. |
| Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co Ltd v Hawkins (1859) 4 H & N 87 | Trading corporations may sue where property or business interests are harmed. | Quoted to show the distinction between protecting property interests and allegations of personal misconduct. |
| South Hetton Coal Co Ltd v North-Eastern News Association Ltd [1894] 1 Q.B. 133 | Trading companies can sue without proof of special damage where business reputation is affected. | Explained as limited to statements impacting business operations; not authority for governmental bodies. |
| National Union of General and Municipal Workers v Gillian [1946] K.B. 81 | Non-trading corporations (e.g., trade unions) may sue for defamation affecting their activities. | Reviewed; distinguished on the basis that unions are not governmental bodies. |
| Bognor Regis UDC v Campion [1972] 2 Q.B. 169 | Local authority permitted to sue for libel regarding “governing reputation.” | Expressly overruled. |
| Willis v Brooks [1947] 1 All E.R. 191 | Critique of Manchester Corporation v Williams. | Cited as academic and judicial criticism of restricting corporate libel actions to property. |
| City of Chicago v Tribune Co (1923) 139 N.E. 86 | Governmental bodies cannot maintain libel actions; freedom of speech concerns. | Relied upon for the chilling-effect analysis and the public interest in unfettered criticism. |
| New York Times Co v Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254 | Endorsed the principle that public officials and bodies must tolerate robust criticism. | Used to reinforce the free-speech rationale. |
| Hector v Attorney-General of Antigua and Barbuda [1990] 2 A.C. 312 | Criminalising statements that undermine public confidence is unconstitutional. | Referenced to illustrate the danger of chilling political criticism. |
| Die Spoorbond v South African Railways (1946) S.A.L.R. 999 | Government department cannot sue for defamation; political criticism is protected. | Quoted with approval when distinguishing governmental entities from private corporations. |
| Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No. 2) [1990] 1 A.C. 109 | Central government bodies have restricted rights compared with private citizens. | Used to analogise limitations on governmental litigation rights. |
| The Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 254; Barthold v Germany (1985) 7 E.H.R.R. 383; Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 407 | Interpretation of “necessary in a democratic society” under Article 10 ECHR. | Provided the analytical framework, although the ultimate decision rested on common-law principles. |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] 1 A.C. 696; In re W (a Minor) [1992] 1 W.L.R. 100; Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1248 | Role of the European Convention in areas of domestic legal uncertainty. | Mentioned by the Court of Appeal; acknowledged by the House but not determinative of the outcome. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Distinction between governmental and other corporations. The House observed that earlier authorities allowing corporations to sue concerned trading or associative bodies whose commercial or membership interests could be damaged by defamation. A local authority’s core function, however, is governmental.
2. Importance of uninhibited political speech. Democratic accountability requires that citizens must be free to criticise government without the chilling effect of potential libel suits. Comparative decisions from the United States, South Africa and Privy Council jurisprudence supported this principle.
3. Adequacy of alternative remedies. Individual councillors or officers defamed can sue in their own names; the authority itself may bring an action for malicious falsehood where economic loss is provable. Criminal libel also remains available in extreme cases.
4. Common-law conclusion. There is no pressing social need for a governmental body to sue for libel, and the public interest is better served by denying that right. The House therefore held that, at common law, a local authority has no cause of action in defamation.
5. Position under the European Convention. While the Court of Appeal relied on Article 10 ECHR, the House found domestic common law already consistent with the Convention, making separate reliance unnecessary.
6. Overruling inconsistent authority. The decision in Bognor Regis UDC v Campion was declared wrongly decided and formally overruled.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The order of the Court of Appeal was affirmed; the Appellant must pay the Respondents’ costs.
Implications: Local authorities and, by analogy, other governmental bodies cannot sue for defamation. The ruling strengthens protection for political expression and clarifies that governmental entities must rely on alternative causes of action (e.g., malicious falsehood) or public rebuttal rather than libel litigation. No new cause of action was created.
Alert