header-logo header-logo

14 March 2013
Issue: 7552 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Motormouth cleared

Car manufacturer runs out of battery in Court of Appeal

Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson did not libel the makers of an electric car, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In Tesla Motors Ltd & Anor v BBC [2013] EWCA Civ 152, Lord Justice Moore-Bick dismissed Tesla’s appeal over an unfavourable review of its Roadster, an electric sports car based on the Lotus Elise.

The legal action centred on Clarkson’s comment during an episode of Top Gear broadcast in 2008 that Tesla said the car “would do 200 miles” when in fact it ran out of battery after just 55 miles on the Top Gear test track. This was followed by footage of the electric Roadster being pushed into the hangar.

Tesla argued Clarkson’s comments were defamatory because they implied it “intentionally or recklessly grossly misled potential purchasers” by claiming the car had a longer range than it did. Tesla said the BBC film contained other inaccuracies, including saying another Roadster had broken brakes, and claimed malicious falsehood on the BBC’s part in order to cause the company pecuniary damage.

However, Mr Justice Tugendhat dismissed the claim, noting that no reasonable person would compare the car’s performance on the Top Gear test track, which involved heavy cornering and acceleration, with that on public roads; therefore they would not infer Tesla had set out to mislead. The malicious falsehood claim did not go to appeal due to causation issues.

Dismissing Tesla’s appeal, Moore-Bick LJ said: “The fact is that the difference between the two was obviously so great that a reasonable viewer would realise that the comparison was meaningless. In my view, therefore, the judge was right to hold that the words complained of were incapable of bearing the meaning which Tesla sought to attribute to them.”

Referring to the case of Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75, Moore-Bick LJ  said there were difficulties identifying any pecuniary loss likely to have been caused by the false statements, although he would “hesitate” to describe the proceedings as an abuse of process.

Issue: 7552 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll