header-logo header-logo

15 March 2013
Issue: 7552 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Libel and slander—Particulars—Defamatory meaning

Tesla Motors Ltd and another v British Broadcasting Corporation [2013] EWCA Civ 152, [2013] All ER (D) 16 (Mar)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Maurice Kay VP, Moore-Bick and Rimer LJJ, 5 Mar 2013

The BBC programme Top Gear did not make the general public believe that the manufacturer of an electric car had grossly misled potential purchasers of the vehicle about its range and accordingly had not libeled the manufacturer.

Richard Spearman QC and William McCormick QC (instructed by Carter-Ruck) for the claimants. Andrew Caldecott QC and Catrin Evans (instructed by BBC Litigation Department) for the defendant.

The claimants manufactured and distributed electric cars. They produced a vehicle known as the “Roadster”. During 2008, two Roadsters were reviewed by the Top Gear programme made by the defendant. The film, which lasted about 10 minutes, was included in the edition of the programme broadcast on 14 December 2008. It had since been shown on several television channels on several occasions and remained available to view on the Top Gear

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll