Many of the more celebrated cases in the libel tourism that has generated all this activity, such as the £1.5 million spent by the journal Nature in defending a plainly factual but defamatory statement about an Asian journal that was created simply to publish the papers of the sponsor, are of just that character. The statement were plain fact, but the action brought in this country by people outside it cost huge sums of money. The action involving Simon Singh was another example. What he was saying was plainly factual but was defamatory; it was intended to be so in every meaningful sense, and properly so. Somehow we keep losing sight of this in the legal elegances.
Defamation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord May of Oxford
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 January 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Defamation Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
742 c216GC 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-03-26 19:25:32 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-15/13011578000099
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-15/13011578000099
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-15/13011578000099