Duke v The University of Salford

A university has capacity to sue for libel. Public funding and statutory regulation do not make it a governmental body to which the rule in Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers applies. The court must construe the words complained of in context and identify whether they defame the corporate claimant or particular individuals. Allegations about personal misconduct, bias, nepotism, bullying or the discharge of individual responsibilities will generally concern human beings rather than the corporate entity. A corporate libel action may be an abuse of process where any corporate damage is merely incidental and the real purpose or practical effect is to restrain criticism of non-party individuals. In that situation, the action may be struck out under the Jameel principles.

The University of Salford brought a libel claim against Dr Gary Duke concerning blogs published in 2009. The District Judge refused an application to strike out the claim, and permission to appeal was later granted on two issues: whether a university can sue for libel, and whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process under Jameel.

The blogs criticised the University’s administration, with particular emphasis on its Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor. The central questions were whether the publications referred to and defamed the University itself, and whether continuation of the proceedings would serve any legitimate purpose.

1. Capacity to sue. The appeal was allowed on abuse-of-process grounds, but the challenge to the University’s capacity to sue for libel was rejected. A university is not, merely because it receives public money and complies with statutory provisions, equivalent to central or local government. The principle in Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers therefore did not prevent it from bringing proceedings.
2. Construction of the publications. The words had to be construed in their context. Although the University was referred to, the allegations principally concerned Dr Graves and Professor Hall and their conduct in administering the institution. Allegations of secrecy, improper payments, bullying, harassment, nepotism, excessive workloads and bias were allegations about individual human conduct. Any adverse reflection on the University was incidental.
3. Abuse of process. The court applied the approach in Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones Inc, also expressed as whether the litigation was worth pursuing or the game worth the candle. There was no real and substantial tort against the University and no tangible prospect of effectively vindicating its corporate reputation. An injunction would, in substance, restrain criticism of the two individual office-holders, who were not parties to the proceedings.
4. The court recognised that an employer might in an appropriate case support and fund an individual libel claim by an employee concerning the performance of employment duties. That possibility did not justify continuation of this corporate claim.
5. The District Judge’s decision was set aside and the claim was struck out as an abuse of process.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): Allowed the appeal and struck out the University’s libel claim as an abuse of process.
• Manchester District Registry: District Judge Richmond refused the application to strike out on 10 March 2012.