To begin with, the main concerns for these cases arose out of the football ground incident could be divided into five fields. These includes the defamation of NWT, psychiatric injuries on George, Enid and Harry, omissions by Bill and the Bangor Academy for Gifted Children, duty of care of James as a driver, and lastly, negligence by Menai Rovers FC. With the objective of clarify the related facts and arguments, in the following will take the claim of each claimant in turn, dealing completely with each one's claim before starting on the next. These are to be discussed henceforth.
Looking first on the case of defamation, where NWT has criticized both Gareth and the Menai Rovers fans. Television broadcasts are statements made in permanent form; accordingly, it is libel by statute including Defamation Act 1952 and the Broadcasting Act 1990 .
Taking accounts to Gareth's situation, whether the words "lazy slug" is defamatory is arguable.
English: A notice conforming to §5(2)c of the Occ...
English: Notice excluding duty of care to farm vis...
English: Welcome to Kettles Lane The Notice states...It is up to the jury to determine whether the words in fact are defamatory . The classic statement of principle is that of Lord Atkin in Sim v Strech, "a statement which tends to lower the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking members of society generally, and in particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear and disesteemâ¦" Given that Gareth is 'mercilessly ridiculed every time he plays football', it is highly possible that it would be considered as defamatory.
As in Berkoff v Burchill, the defendant claimed that the words "hideously ugly" were not defamatory by the reason that it did not injure the reputation of the claimant. The Court of Appeal agreed that the words merely causing anger or upset, was not enough to amount to defamation. Despite the fact that Gareth's reputation is not...