Iqbal v GEO TV Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1566
The case of Iqbal v Geo TV concerned a libel action brought by Salman Iqbal, the founder and president of ARY Digital Network, against Geo TV Limited, a member of the Jang Group. The dispute arose from a political rally held by the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (PML-N) on 19 May 2022 in Sargodha, Pakistan. During the rally, Maryam Nawaz Sharif, a senior figure in the PML-N, made several defamatory statements against Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, and Salman Iqbal. These statements were broadcast live and subsequently reported in multiple news bulletins by Geo TV.
During the political rally held by the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (PML-N) on 19 May 2022, Maryam Nawaz Sharif made several defamatory statements against Salman Iqbal and Imran Khan. She accused Salman Iqbal, the founder and president of ARY Digital Network, of being a “gold smuggler” and alleged that he had received significant financial benefits from Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan. Specifically, she claimed that Imran Khan had waived 10 to 12 billion rupees of taxes for Iqbal, provided him with 4 billion rupees worth of World Call without due process, and that they were “equal partners in theft.” These statements were broadcast live by Geo TV and subsequently reported in eleven news bulletins, leading to the libel action brought by Salman Iqbal.
High Court Decision
In the High Court, Geo TV applied for summary judgment, arguing that the broadcasts were fair and accurate reports of proceedings at a public meeting, thus protected by qualified privilege under Section 15 of the Defamation Act 1996. His Honour Judge Lewis, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, found that the rally was a public meeting and that the broadcasts were fair and accurate reports of the proceedings. However, the judge concluded that there was a realistic prospect of success for Iqbal’s claim on two issues: whether the broadcasts satisfied the requirements of Section 15(3) and whether they were published maliciously. Consequently, the judge dismissed Geo TV’s application for summary judgment.
Court of Appeal Decision
Geo TV argued that the broadcasts were fair and accurate reports of a public meeting, thus protected by qualified privilege under Section 15 of the Defamation Act 1996.
They contended that the rally was a public meeting held for a lawful purpose and discussed matters of public interest.Geo TV maintained that the reports were made without malice and that the allegations made by Maryam Nawaz Sharif were already in the public domain.
Salman Iqbal argued that the broadcasts were not fair and accurate and that they were made with malice. He contended that the allegations were false and that Geo TV knew or should have known about their falsity. Iqbal also argued that the publication was not for the public benefit and that the broadcasts were intended to damage his reputation.
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge had erred in finding that there was a realistic prospect of success for Iqbal’s claim on the issues of public interest, public benefit, and malice. The Court of Appeal emphasised that the statutory privilege under Section 15 of the Defamation Act 1996 is intended to protect fair and accurate reports of public meetings, and that the broadcasts in question met these criteria. The court also noted that the allegations made by Maryam Nawaz Sharif were matters of public interest and that their publication was for the public benefit. Finally, the court found that there was no evidence to support a claim of malice against Geo TV.
The Court of Appeal considered whether the case was inherently unsuitable for summary judgment and concluded that it was not inherently complex, obscure, or uncertain. The court referenced Easyair Ltd (t/a Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd in its reasoning.
The court followed the approach in McCartan Turkington Breen v Times Newspapers Ltd and found that the event had been a public meeting. The court also referenced Cook v Alexander in determining that the live broadcast and later bulletins were fair and accurate reports.
The court clarified that Section 15(3) raises two different issues: the qualities of the matter and the impact of publication. The court found that the words complained of were plainly of public interest and that the privilege could not be lost by virtue of Section 15(3).
The court referenced Horrocks v Lowe in its analysis of malice and concluded that the claimant’s pleading of malice contained allegations of careless or irresponsible journalism, which were insufficient to establish a probability of malice. The court also referenced Lillie v Newcastle City Council and Tsikata v Newspaper Publishing Plc in its reasoning.
Summary of the Final Decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the efficiency of summary judgment applications, especially in defamation cases where costs can become disproportionate. Geo TVâs Defence on qualified privilege was clear, and there was no need for a trial. The live broadcast and bulletins were fair and accurate reports of a public meeting, and the judge’s refusal to summarily determine the applicability of Section 15(3) was incorrect. The publication was of public interest and for the public benefit, and there was no evidence of malice. The claimant’s allegations of careless journalism were insufficient to establish malice.