Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd

The House of Lords held that, at common law, a local authority does not have a right to maintain an action for defamation (libel) in respect of publications reflecting on its governmental or administrative conduct. The court drew a distinction between trading or charitable corporations, which may sue where defamatory statements injure them in the way of their business, and governmental bodies, which are democratically accountable and should remain open to uninhibited public criticism.

Because recognition of a right to sue by organs of government would unduly fetter freedom of expression, no public interest justified such a right; the court concluded existing remedies (for example, actions by individual councillors or officers, malicious falsehood, criminal libel or political and public responses) were adequate. The decision overruled Bognor Regis U.D.C. v. Campion and treated Manchester Corporation v. Williams as unsound.

This case concerned a libel action brought by Derbyshire County Council in respect of articles published in The Sunday Times concerning investments by the council's superannuation fund. The council sued the publishers, editor and journalists, alleging the publications injured its credit and reputation; no special damage was pleaded. The claim raised, as a preliminary issue, whether a local authority could maintain an action for libel.

Procedural history: the preliminary point was decided for the council at first instance by Morland J. (reported at [1991] 4 All E.R. 795), reversed by the Court of Appeal ([1992] Q.B. 770) and the matter was brought to the House of Lords with leave.

Issues framed: (i) whether a local authority can sue in defamation for statements about its governmental or administrative conduct; (ii) if not, what remedies (if any) remain available; and (iii) the relevance of freedom of expression and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the common law rule.

Court's reasoning: the House analysed authorities on corporations and libel (including Manchester Corporation v. Williams, Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co. v. Hawkins, South Hetton Coal Co. v. North-Eastern News Association Ltd., National Union of General and Municipal Workers v. Gillian and Bognor Regis U.D.C. v. Campion). The Lords accepted that trading and other non-governmental corporations may sue where defamatory matter injures them in the way of their business, but identified distinct features of local authorities: they are governmental, democratically elected and should be amenable to public criticism. The court concluded that permitting local authorities to sue for defamation would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and that there was no sufficient public interest in recognising such a right. Although the Court of Appeal had relied on Article 10 jurisprudence in its balancing exercise, the House reached its conclusion on the basis of the common law, consistent with Article 10 considerations. The court therefore dismissed the appeal, overruled Bognor Regis and found Manchester Corporation unsound.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that under the common law a local authority does not have the right to maintain an action for defamation as to do so would unduly fetter freedom of speech; alternative remedies (actions by affected individuals, malicious falsehood, criminal libel and political/public response) are available and sufficient. Bognor Regis U.D.C. v. Campion was overruled.

First instance: Morland J. decided the preliminary point in favour of the council ([1991] 4 All E.R. 795). Court of Appeal reversed (Balcombe L.J. leading) ([1992] Q.B. 770). Leave given to appeal to the House of Lords, which dismissed the appeal ([1993] UKHL 18; [1993] AC 534).