The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Tag: Defamation Act 2013 (Page 1 of 7)

Libel: Section 13 of the Defamation Act 2013, Removal orders against non-parties – Adham Harker

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 Defamation Act and the Public Interest: Part 2, The Section 4 Defence, An Alternative View – Jonathan Coad

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

Defamation Act 2013: A summary and overview six years on, Part 2, Sections 4 to 14 – 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. 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

Case Preview: Lachaux v Independent Print, Supreme Court to hear “serious harm” appeal – Mathilde Groppo

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

« Older posts

© 2021 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑