Cooke v MGN Ltd [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB)

Facts

  • The claimant, a private individual, alleged that an article published by Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) contained defamatory statements that harmed her reputation.
  • The proceedings took place in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division.
  • The central question was whether the claimant had established that the publication caused or was likely to cause serious harm to her reputation, as required by Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013.
  • The claimant argued that the statements caused her significant distress and damaged her personal and professional reputation.
  • The court evaluated the nature of the statements, their impact, and the evidence supporting the claim.

Issues

  1. Whether Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 requires private individuals to prove that the publication caused or was likely to cause serious harm to their reputation.
  2. Whether the claimant, as a private individual, benefits from a lower threshold for demonstrating serious harm compared to corporations or public figures.
  3. Whether the evidence provided by the claimant sufficiently demonstrated that serious harm had occurred or was likely to occur as a result of the publication.

Decision

  • The court held that private individuals do face a lower threshold for establishing serious harm under Section 1, but must still provide credible evidence of such harm.
  • The serious harm test is not a procedural formality, but a substantive element of the claim requiring robust evidence.
  • In this case, the court found that the claimant's evidence of harm, based primarily on distress, was insufficient to meet the serious harm standard.
  • The claim was dismissed for failure to satisfy the statutory requirement of showing that serious harm to reputation was caused or was likely.

Legal Principles

  • Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 establishes that a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.
  • The threshold for "serious harm" is lower for private individuals than for corporations or public figures, acknowledging their increased vulnerability to reputational damage.
  • Claimants must provide credible and specific evidence of serious harm, not mere assertions or generalized claims.
  • Context, such as the nature and audience of the publication, is essential in determining whether serious harm has occurred.
  • The serious harm requirement aims to balance the protection of reputation with the need to prevent unfounded or disproportionate defamation claims.

Conclusion

Cooke v MGN Ltd clarified that private individuals must present credible evidence of serious harm to their reputation to succeed in defamation claims under the Defamation Act 2013. The court emphasized the substantive nature of the statutory threshold, highlighting the importance of proportionate and evidence-based assessment in such claims.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal