Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA [2016] EWHC 66 (QB) [2016] EMLR 12

Facts

• The case concerned the publication of an article by a Portuguese newspaper, which was later republished by Impresa Publishing SA on its website.
• The claimant, José Socrates, former Prime Minister of Portugal, argued that the online republication caused additional harm to his reputation.
• The article remained accessible on the defendant’s website for a significant period, prompting a claim of repeated harm.
• The High Court examined whether the concept of republisher’s liability and the repeated accessibility of defamatory content online gave rise to new causes of action.
• The judgment considered the technical aspects of defamation law, including differences between single and multiple publications.

Issues

1. Whether the republication of defamatory material online by the defendant constituted a new act of defamation and a separate cause of action.
2. Whether the continued accessibility of the article resulted in fresh harm to the claimant’s reputation.
3. Whether English defamation law’s treatment of single versus multiple publications applied in the context of online media.
4. The extent of liability for republishers, including media organizations and online platforms, when defamatory content remains available online.

Decision

• The court held that the republication of the article on the defendant’s website constituted a new act of defamation under English law.
• Each republication was found to create a separate cause of action, even if the original publication had occurred earlier.
• The judgment emphasized that fresh harm to a claimant’s reputation arises when defamatory content is republished or remains accessible to new audiences.
• The single publication rule did not apply to republications, which the court treated as distinct acts of defamation.
• The decision underscored the significance of context and timing in determining liability for republications, especially in the digital environment.

Legal Principles

• Under English law, each publication of defamatory material is a separate actionable event; this extends to republications online.
• The concept of “fresh harm” recognizes that repeated statements or ongoing accessibility of defamatory content can cause new injury to reputation.
• The single publication rule limits claims to one year from original publication but does not apply to subsequent republications, particularly online.
• Media organizations and online platforms may be liable for new defamation claims arising from continued or repeated publication of material.
• Comparative approaches in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, differ, with stricter application of the single publication rule, while countries like Australia align with the English approach.

Conclusion

The High Court affirmed that republication of defamatory material online gives rise to fresh harm and new causes of action under English law, imposing expanded liability on republishers and emphasizing the need for vigilance by media organizations and online platforms in the digital age.