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
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Defamation Act 2013 (Page 2 of 7)
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
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”. Continue reading
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. Continue reading
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. Continue reading
On 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. Continue reading
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. Continue reading
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. Continue reading
At first blush, the two most recent libel cases in which the question of serious harm has been tested, yielded contradictory findings. Both cases were argued on the same day before different Judges at separate trials of preliminary issues. In Theedom v Nourish Training Ltd ([2015] EWHC 3769 (QB)) the court found that the Claimant had satisfied the threshold test of s.1 Defamation Act 2013. In Alvaro Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA ([2016] EWHC 66 (QB)) the court found that the threshold test had not been met and further, that the claim was an abuse of process. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑