## Facts

- The case concerned an article published in The Sunday Times alleging corruption within the Referendum Party, founded by Sir James Goldsmith.
- The publication claimed that the party accepted donations from individuals with criminal backgrounds.
- Sir James Goldsmith initiated a defamation claim on behalf of the party, asserting that the statements damaged its reputation.
- The Referendum Party, as an unincorporated political association, was the subject entity seeking legal redress for alleged reputational harm.
- The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether a political party, as a collective body, could bring a defamation action.

## Issues

1. Does a political party, as an unincorporated association, have the legal capacity to sue for defamation?
2. Should the law of defamation extend its protection to the reputations of political parties as collective entities?
3. Would allowing political parties to sue for defamation unduly restrict freedom of expression and political debate?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, holding that political parties, as unincorporated associations, lack the legal standing to sue for defamation.
- It was determined that defamation law protects the reputations of individuals and corporations recognized as legal persons, but not unincorporated associations.
- The court emphasized that allowing political parties to sue could limit free and open political discourse, an essential element of democracy.
- The judgment noted that individual party members retain the right to bring personal defamation actions if their own reputations are impugned.

## Legal Principles

- Only individuals and corporations, as legal persons, may bring claims of defamation; unincorporated associations such as political parties do not have this capacity.
- The purpose of defamation law is to protect personal and corporate reputations, not the collective reputation of a political association.
- Protecting freedom of speech and encouraging uninhibited political debate takes precedence over extending defamation remedies to political parties.
- The courts recognize practical difficulties in assessing and attributing harm to collective reputations.

## Conclusion

The judgment in Goldsmith v Bhoyrul clarified that political parties, as unincorporated associations, cannot generally sue for defamation, reflecting the priority given to freedom of expression in political discourse and the legal distinction between individuals or corporations and collective political entities.


Goldsmith v Bhoyrul [1998] QB 459