Improved judicial case management would have a greater impact on the area
of defamation law than a new Act of Parliament, according to the Civil Justice Council (CJC)
A CJC working party, set up to respond to the government’s draft Defamation Bill consultation, concluded that the proposed legislation would not significantly improve defamation law in England and Wales: “In that sense the draft Bill does not do ‘what it says on the tin’. Indeed, by providing more room for expensive argument and uncertainty, in some respects the draft Bill may make things worse.”
According to the CJC report, the potential cost of court proceedings is the main problem in defamation law. It found that “the single most important means of controlling and reducing costs, and behaviour that can increase costs, is judicial case management, and that can and should be enhanced”.
Clauses 1 to 4 of the draft Bill did not significantly alter the common law, it found, noting “the use of statute simply or principally to codify the common law does carry real risks of inviting fresh argument over previously established points”. The working party also claims that libel tourism was “an imagined problem, not a real one” and that “adequate tools to prevent forum shopping already exist”.
The CJC recommends that jury trial be restricted to specific types of cases, that there be early determination of “meaning” where possible, and that more procedures and remedies be made available.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=1d8709f4_1)
