Bookbinder v Tebbit [1989] 1 All ER 1169

Facts

• The case arose from a political dispute between David Bookbinder, a Labour councillor, and Norman Tebbit, Chairman of the Conservative Party.
• Tebbit publicly accused Bookbinder of misusing public funds.
• The statement made by Tebbit included both true and false elements.
• Bookbinder claimed that the false aspects of the statement damaged his reputation and brought a defamation action.
• Some details of the dispute were factually accurate, while others were alleged to be misleading or untrue.

Issues

1. Whether a statement containing both true and false elements can sustain a defence of justification in defamation if the false parts are significant.
2. Whether the defence of justification requires that a defamatory statement, taken as a whole, is substantially true.
3. Whether contextual accuracy and the overall impression of a statement determine its defamatory nature for legal purposes.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that the defence of justification could not succeed if the untrue parts of a statement were significant.
• The court found that it is not sufficient for a statement to be partially true; the false elements cannot materially alter the meaning if the defence is to apply.
• The defence of justification requires that the statement as a whole be substantially true.
• Defendants cannot rely on partial truths to justify defamatory statements when falsehoods are material to the statement's meaning.

Legal Principles

• The defence of justification in defamation requires the impugned statement as a whole to be substantially true.
• Contextual accuracy is essential; an individually true element may constitute defamation when considered with misleading or false components.
• The overall impression and impact of a statement, not just its isolated components, guides legal assessment of defamation.
• The principle discourages reliance on partial truths to avoid liability for defamatory statements.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Bookbinder v Tebbit clarified that for the defence of justification in defamation to succeed, a statement must be substantially true as a whole; significant false elements defeat the defence, highlighting the necessity for contextual and factual accuracy in reputational matters.