High Court: Online article with only four visits not libel

A libel action over an article that appeared on the website of a South African magazine has been dismissed by a court in England. Evidence suggested that the article had received only four visits from the UK in a two month period. Describing the claim as being "totally without merit," Mr Justice Tugendhat said the claimants …

[Clarissa]

Wrong judge...

If they'd their case heard in front of Mr Justice Eady then, given his track record on libel tourism, they would probably have won.

Thankfully they didn't.

[Ed Blackshaw]

With stories like this

We're going to need a Barbra Streisand icon...

Oh well, Paris will have to do for now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Three cheers for Mr Justice Tugendhat !

Plaintif tried to misuse the law and the law won.

[Stuart 22]

Monday Morning

What a nice story to start the week. And a self deserved rebound on the claimants. More own goals & tattered reputations then we shall see in the whole South African World Cup methinks!

[Garve Scott-Lodge]

Common Sense for once...

...but what did it cost the organisation to defend it, and could they get these back from the claimants?

[kain preacher]

Wait something not right

The web siting being sued is not in the is not in the UK. The servers physical presences is in South Africa They should be suing in south Africa.

[Juan Inamillion]

@Wait something not right

You're missing the point. It's all to do with 'libel tourism' which has seen cases of libel being brought against foreigners by foreigners in the British courts, because we have some of the worst libel case law in the world. Effectively the burden of proof lies with the defendant to prove they're innocent which can prove very expensive indeed when up against (the usually) very wealthy plaintiffs.

Get yourself some recent back issues of Private Eye to see what Judge Eady and the law firm Carter Fuck have been up to.

This is a great victory for common sense.

Should be two thumbs up.

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words...

If there have been only 4 hits on the page, looks like the claimants themselves were probably the only readers?