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. Read the rest of this entry »
Business as usual? The Court of Appeal considers the threshold for bringing a libel claim in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd – Iain Wilson and Tom Double
16 09 2017Comments : 9 Comments »
Tags: Brett Wilson LLP, Defamation Act 2013, Serious Harm
Categories : Libel
Lachaux, Seriously limiting serious harm – Nicola Cain
14 09 2017
Trumpeting the Defamation Act 2013 when it received Royal Assent, the Ministry of Justice publicised section 1(1) of the Act, which provides that “A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant“, established “a requirement for companies and individuals to show serious harm to establish a claim“. The Act, according to Lord McNally, represented “the end of a long and hard fought battle to reform the libel laws in England and Wales”. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: Defamation Act 2013, Nicola Cain, RPC Privacy Blog, Serious Harm
Categories : Libel
News: Defamation and “Serious Harm” Court of Appeal dismisses Lachaux appeal
12 09 2017
On 12 September 2017 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the important “serious harm” case of Lachaux v. Independent Print ([2017] EWCA Civ 1334). The Court unanimously dismissed the appeals of the defendants against the decision of Warby J ([2015] EWHC 2242 (QB)) that the claimant had established “serious harm” within the meaning of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: Defamation Act 2013, Lachaux, Serious Harm
Categories : Libel
Case Law: Zahawi v Press TV, Fake News: memes, terrorism and jurisdiction – Susan Aslan
9 05 2017
This libel claim was brought by Nadhim Zahawi, the Conservative MP for Stratford-on-Avon against Press TV, the First Defendant, an English language news and documentary network based in Iran. It is affiliated with the State owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting. The Second Defendant is a UK Limited company. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: Defamation Act 2013, Jurisdiction, Master McCloud, Nadhim Zahawi, Susan Aslan
Categories : Libel
Defamation Act 2013: You cannot be serious – Tom Rudkin
3 03 2016On 1 January 2014, the Defamation Act 2013 came into force in England and Wales, introducing a series of new provisions applicable to the law of libel and slander. Cue a frenzy of speculation among media and reputation management lawyers as to how the new Act would be interpreted by the courts and, more importantly, what impact it would have for those seeking to protect their reputations in the face of false and damaging allegations. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Defamation Act 2013, Farrer & Co, Serious Harm, Tom Rudkin
Categories : Libel
Lachaux, the Huffington Post and “Serious Harm” under the Defamation Act 2013 – Jonathan Coad
6 02 2016
In a trial which took place in July 2015 Warby J found that the reputation of a foreign national living overseas had suffered “serious harm” as a result of the publication by the Huffington Post of a third party blog on its website about a marital dispute between the claimant and his ex-wife ([2015] EWHC 2242 (QB)). By that decision the High Court elucidated some general principles about how section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 should be applied in the preliminary stages of a defamation claim. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Defamation Act 2013, Jonathan Coad, Lachaux, Serious Harm, Warby J
Categories : Libel
Case Law, Sobrinho v Impresa: Serious allegations do not always mean serious harm – Nathan Capone
31 01 2016
The case of Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing ([2016] EWHC 66 (QB)) was a defamation claim in respect of an article in a Portuguese newspaper which alleged illegality on the part of a banker. Dingemans J held that this had not caused serious harm to the banker’s reputation in England and Wales. Further, the proceedings were an abuse of process, his reputation already having been vindicated in Portugal. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Defamation Act 2013, Dingemans J, Nathan Capone, Serious Harm
Categories : Libel
