Out-Law News | 04 May 2007 | 4:54 pm |
Our article on the defamation proceedings between Peter Curistan and The Sunday Times (OUT-LAW News, 27/04/2007) incorrectly stated that the Sunday Times was protected by parliamentary privilege in relation to an article it had published about Peter Curistan. In fact, the Court held that certain specific words within the article were privileged but rejected The Sunday Times’ argument that the privileged words should be disregarded by the Court when considering the meaning of the article. The practical effect of the ruling is that if Peter Curistan wins his case (the hearing was only a preliminary one) the privileged words will be ignored when it comes to assessing his damages
The Court also held that the article bore the more serious meaning that Peter Curistan attributed to it, as opposed to The Sunday Times’ interpretation. As a result, the great bulk o The Sunday Times’ argument that the article was true has been struck out.
We are happy to correct the position and apologise for any misunderstanding caused.