Defamation

Judge holding that publication attracted qualified privilege and that there was no evidence on which jury could properly find malice - entitled to withdraw case from juryAlexander v Arts Council of Wales and Another: CA (Lord Woolf CJ, Lords Justice May and Jonathan Parker): 9 April 2001The claimant sought damages from the defendants for libel and slander.

After the evidence had been called, the judge held that the publications complained of attracted the defence of qualified privilege and that there was no evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly directed, could hold that the defendants had acted maliciously.Accordingly, the judge concluded that the claim could not succeed and he gave judgment for the defendants.

The claimant appealed.Patrick Milmo QC and William Bennett (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for the claimant.

Thomas Shields QC and Timothy Atkinson (instructed by Edwards Geldard, Cardiff) for the defendants.Held, dismissing the appeal, that where there was a material issue of fact in a libel case, section 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 entitled a party to have that issue decided by the jury; but that it was for the judge to decide whether there really was such an issue and, if he concluded that the evidence, taken at its highest, was such that a jury properly directed could not properly reach a necessary factual conclusion, he was entitled to withdraw that issue from the jury; that, therefore, if a party's case depended on a finding of fact by the jury which, if it were so found, was bound to be set aside on appeal as perverse, the judge could grant the other party summary judgment under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 24.2; and that, accordingly, in the circumstances the judge had been entitled to withdraw the claimant's claim from the jury (WLR).