Furthermore, the statement 'opponents say that he puts the keys of high powered cars back into the hands of drink drivers is ironical and it is meant to lower his reputation as a celebrity lawyer.'
Again look at the words 'stitch him up' as used by the police officers. These words can be interpreted by any ordinary person. The words should not be taken in their ordinary meaning in order to find defamation in them but from the inference which would be drawn by the ordinary person who read the words.
i) Substantial damages: The allegations on the newspaper are enormous especially that Nick Freeman was arrested on conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in a bid to protect drunk drivers. It is apparent that these allegations will substantially affect his profession. He should therefore sue the company substantial damages. 2
Special damages: The article would be read by several clients of Nick and his several would-be clients. They may refuse to enter into contracts with him in future. This is likely to financially affect his career in the future. He can the therefore seek special damages for that matter. In the case of Byre v Deare, the plaintiff was a member of a golf club. Some gaming machines were removed from the club following the complaints made to police. Then some typewritten lampoons were placed where the machines were installed and it read a follow:-
For many years upon this spot,
You heard the sound of the merry bell,
Those who were rash and those who were not,
Lost and made a spot of cash,
But he who gave the game away,
May be Byrne in hell rue the day. 3
An action for defamation by the plaintiff did not succeed as it was held that a right thinking person would not view the words as defamatory.
ii) Another remedy available to Nick is injunction. Since he is anxiously eager to prevent further publications by the newspaper, he can apply for an injunction. This would compel the court to order the company to stop further publication of information concerning him. 4
Fiona Shackleton is currently employed by Payre Hick Beach which was not her employer at the time of the case between Prince of Wales and Diana. But the Evening Standard has gone ahead to print a false statement that it was Payre Hicks Beach firm as a whole which conducted the case when the truth is that it was in fact Farrar's. 5 Fiona Shackleton shall have to proof the following:-
i) Justification: - in order for her to successfully sue the defendants, Fiona Shackleton must justify that the words so printed injured her reputation as a lawyer. For that matter, she should argue that these printings would effect a similar case before her, that of Sin Paul Mc Carthey v Lady Mills - Mc Marthey.
ii) Reference to the plaintiff: - That the words so printed referred to her. Though in actual sense, there is nowhere her name is mentioned, only the firm's name. She is the one who represented the case into E. Hulton and Co. v Jones. A newspaper published an article that the plaintiff was accused of staying with a woman in France. The defendants alleged that they had invented the name i.e. there was