Dering v Uris
1964 English libel suit
Dering v Uris and Others was a 1964 English libel suit brought by Polish-born Władysław Dering against the American writer Leon Uris. It was described at the time as the first war crimes trial held in Britain.
Dering alleged that Uris had libelled him in a footnote in his novel Exodus, which described his participation in medical experiments in Auschwitz concentration camp during the Holocaust. The case was tried in the High Court of Justice before Mr Justice Lawton and a jury between April and May 1964. On 6 May, the jury returned a verdict for Dering, but awarded him contemptuous damages of one halfpenny, the smallest coin in the currency. As a result, Dering became liable for the defendants' legal costs.
The trial attracted wide media coverage. In particular, The Times provided extensive coverage of the case, printing large portions of the testimony presented in court. Uris's novel QB VII and its 1974 miniseries adaptation are loosely based on this case.
Background
Władysław Alexander Dering was a Polish doctor who was imprisoned at Auschwitz during the Second World War for resistance activities.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Dering v Uris” as 1964 English libel suit. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as 1964 English libel suit. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 4, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5262595. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1964 and 1974.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Dering v Uris”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Dering v Uris primary sources, Dering v Uris archive and Dering research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Dering v Uris”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Dering v Uris” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.