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

6 11 2018

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). Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Libel

Defendants should not be gleeful at prospect of Supreme Court allowing appeal on defamation test in Lachaux case – Greg Callus

15 04 2018

There is a sneaking suspicion among some media lawyers that our cases seem to get permission to appeal to the higher courts more regularly than one might expect. Maybe it’s the fast-changing nature of media and communications law in the digital era; maybe it’s the sparkle and pizzazz of celebrities and gossip which brightens the day of overworked appellate judges. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Libel

News: Serious Harm, Supreme Court grants permission to appeal in Lachaux v Independent Print

23 03 2018

On 21 March 2018 the Supreme Court (Lords Kerr and Reed and Lady Black) granted the defendants permission to appeal in the case of Lachaux v Independent Print.  The Supreme Court will now consider the meaning and effect of the “serious harm” requirement in section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 for the first time. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Libel

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 2017

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 »


Comments : 10 Comments »
Tags: , ,
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: , , ,
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: , ,
Categories : Libel

Twitter, defamation and “serious harm” – David Rolph

25 03 2017

Twitter may well be the “Wild West” of social media. Certainly, anyone who has spent even a little time on it will be aware that there are a lot of people out there with most decided views who are willing to share them, frequently and stridently. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Australia, Libel

« Previous Entries