O'Shea v MGN [2001] EMLR 943

Facts

  • The claimant, Mr. O’Shea, brought a defamation claim against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) following the publication of an advertisement in The Sunday Mirror for an adult telephone service.
  • The advertisement displayed a photograph of a woman resembling Mr. O’Shea, accompanied by the caption "This could be you," inviting readers to call a premium-rate number.
  • Some people who knew Mr. O’Shea mistakenly identified him as the individual depicted in the advertisement.
  • The claimant argued that this misidentification caused harm to his reputation by suggesting an association with the adult service.
  • The courts accepted that the photograph did not actually portray Mr. O’Shea, and there was no intention or foreseeability on MGN’s part to cause mistaken identification.

Issues

  1. Whether a publisher may be held strictly liable for defamation where mistaken identification of the claimant in a publication is purely coincidental and not reasonably foreseeable.
  2. Whether the principles of defamation law require intent or foreseeability for the element of identification to be satisfied.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that MGN could not be held liable for defamation in the circumstances.
  • Identification of Mr. O’Shea as the person in the advertisement was purely coincidental and unforeseeable by the publisher.
  • Strict liability does not apply in defamation cases where identification is accidental and beyond the control or reasonable anticipation of the publisher.
  • The court clarified that for liability to arise, the defendant must have intended or could reasonably have foreseen that the publication would lead to the claimant being identified.

Legal Principles

  • For a defamation claim, the statement must be defamatory, refer to the claimant, and be published to a third party.
  • The element of identification requires that the publication can reasonably be understood as referring to the claimant.
  • Strict liability in defamation is limited; it does not extend to purely coincidental or unforeseeable identification.
  • Liability for defamation should be based on foreseeability and reasonable anticipation, not on unintended or accidental resemblance.

Conclusion

The decision in O’Shea v MGN [2001] EMLR 943 confirmed that publishers are not strictly liable for defamation arising from purely coincidental and unforeseeable mistaken identification, emphasizing the importance of foreseeability in the law of defamation.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal