Section 13(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 allows a Court to order that a non-party to cease communicating a defendant’s defamatory statement. Such an order can be made against a website operator, requiring them to remove the statement (section 13(a)), or any person who was not the author, editor or publisher of the defamatory who is distributing, selling or exhibiting material containing the statement (section 13(b)). Such orders are made after a claimant has obtained judgment. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Defamation Act 2013 (Page 1 of 7)
In our first post on the decision of Mr Justice Jay in Soriano v Forensic News LLC and Others [2021] EWHC 56 (QB) we focused on the Judge’s analysis of the circumstances in which the GDPR will apply to a publisher based outside the EU (and by analogy the UK GDPR to a publisher based outside the UK). Continue reading
I make the case in Part 1 of this post that there are good policy reasons why Section 1(2) of the Defamation Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”) does not always best serve the public interest. However even if the Section 1(2) hurdle were absent, a corporate claimant whose product or business practices have wrongly been attacked is likely then to be confronted with a “public interest” defence under Section 4. Continue reading
The Defamation Act 2013 (‘the Act’) came into force on 1 January 2014. At the time, we published an article considering the individual provisions of the Act, and speculating about how the law of defamation had been changed. In this follow-up article, we revisit the topic six years after the Act’s inception and look at what has happened in practice. Part 1 of this post looked at sections 1 to 3. Continue reading
Defamation Act 2013: A summary and overview six years on, Part 1, Sections 1 to 3 – Brett Wilson LLP
The Defamation Act 2013 (‘the Act’) came into force on 1 January 2014. At the time, we published an article considering the individual provisions of the Act, and speculating about how the law of defamation had been changed. In this follow-up article, we revisit the topic six years after the Act’s inception and look at what has happened in practice. This post deals with sections 1 to 3. The remainder of the Act will be considered in Part 2. Continue reading
On 16 October 2019, the judgment in Al Sadik (aka Riad Tawfiq Mahmood Al Sadek Aka Riad Tawfik Sadik) v Sadik ([2019] EWHC 2717 (QB)) was handed down. The case concerned a claim in libel, which had been brought by a businessman and philanthropist against his sister-in-law. Continue reading
The decision of Mr Justice Nicklin in Craig Wright v Roger Ver ([2019] EWHC 2094 (QB)) confirms the high hurdle that a claimant must overcome in a defamation case where section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 applies. Continue reading
The public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 replaced the old defence of Reynolds privilege. A number of cases have since established that the old criteria for responsible journalism under Reynolds is still relevant when assessing the reasonable belief requirement of the new defence. Continue reading
On Tuesday and Wednesday 13 and 14 November 2018, the Supreme Court (Lords Kerr, Wilson, Sumption, Hodge and Briggs) will hear the appeal in Lachaux (Respondent) v Independent Print Limited and another (Appellants) UKSC 2017/0175, against the Court of Appeal decision of Davis LJ, with whom MacFarlane and Sharp LJJ concurred ([2017] EWCA Civ 1334). Continue reading
The long-awaited decision in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1334 has brought some badly-needed clarity and certainty to the law of libel, and it seems fair to say that reports of the death of the libel writ have been greatly exaggerated. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2021 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑