Salman Iqbal v GEO TV Limited

Statutory reporting privilege may protect a live broadcast of proceedings at a public meeting, but whether a live broadcast is a report is fact-specific. A political rally may be a public meeting even if it is partisan, highly charged, attended mainly by supporters, or lacks formal debate and decorum.

The requirements that the publication concern a matter of public interest and be for the public benefit are cumulative and are assessed objectively on the facts. The court must consider the status of the material reported and what the publisher knew, or ought to have known, about disputed allegations. Those issues, together with malice, may require disclosure and trial rather than summary determination.

The claimant, the founder and president of ARY Digital Network, brought libel proceedings concerning twelve GEO News broadcasts of speeches at a political rally in Pakistan. The broadcasts repeated allegations that he was a gold smuggler and had improperly obtained substantial financial benefits through his relationship with the former Pakistani prime minister.

The defendant applied for summary judgment on a proposed defence of statutory qualified privilege under section 15 of the Defamation Act 1996. The issues included whether the rally was a public meeting, whether the live coverage was a report, whether the reports were fair and accurate, whether section 15(3) was satisfied, and whether publication was malicious.

1. Summary judgment. The application was dismissed. Applying the approach in Easyair Limited (Trading As Openair) v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch), the court could determine short points of law or construction, but should not conduct a mini-trial where further factual investigation might affect the outcome.
2. Public meeting. The rally fell within paragraph 12 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Defamation Act 1996. It was a genuine, planned and lawful political meeting, open in principle to anyone, concerned with matters of public importance and held to further political aims. Partisan character, heated rhetoric, supporters’ attendance and lack of formal decorum did not prevent it being a public meeting. The court did not decide whether it was also a press conference.
3. Report and fairness. A live broadcast is not excluded from the statutory meaning of report merely because it is live. The question is fact-specific. Here, the live relay, rolling ticker and presenter’s summary together constituted a report. The bulletins were materially accurate and fair as regards the claimant, applying the approach in Cook v Alexander [1974] 2 QB 279.
4. Public interest and public benefit. Under section 15(3), the requirements are cumulative and objectively assessed, as explained in Qadir v Associated Newspapers Limited [2012] EWHC 2064 (QB). The status of the material, the political context, the fact that the allegations were highly contentious, and the defendant’s knowledge or likely knowledge of their disputed character raised factual issues unsuitable for summary judgment. The publisher need not generally fact-check every statement or search for past denials, but the particular circumstances remained unresolved.
5. Malice. The issue overlapped with section 15(3), especially the defendant’s knowledge of the allegations’ status. The claimant’s case was imperfectly pleaded and difficult to establish, but the evidence was insufficient to dispose of the issue summarily. The defendant’s application for summary judgment was dismissed.