Our article on the defamation proceedings between Peter Curistan
and The Sunday Times (OUT-LAW News, 27/04/2007) incorrectly stated
that the Sunday Times was protected by parliamentary privilege in
relation to an article it had published about Peter Curistan. In
fact, the Court held that certain specific words within the article
were privileged but rejected The Sunday Times’ argument that the
privileged words should be disregarded by the Court when
considering the meaning of the article. The practical effect
of the ruling is that if Peter Curistan wins his case (the hearing
was only a preliminary one) the privileged words will be ignored
when it comes to assessing his damages
The Court also held that the article bore the more serious
meaning that Peter Curistan attributed to it, as opposed to
The Sunday Times’ interpretation. As a result, the great bulk o The
Sunday Times’ argument that the article was true has been struck
out.
We are happy to correct the position and apologise for any
misunderstanding caused.
