header-logo header-logo

Libel & slander

28 September 2017
Issue: 7763 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and another; Lachaux v AOL (UK) Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1334, [2017] All ER (D) 85 (Sep)

Having outlined the meaning and effect of, and the proper approach to, s 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, whatever doubts there were about the judge’s approach, he had reached a conclusion as to the overall outcome which he had been fully justified in reaching. Accordingly, it dismissed the defendants’ appeal against the judge’s decision that the defendants’ articles had involved publication of defamatory statements which had caused, or had been likely to cause, serious harm to the claimant.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Fox & Partners—Nikki Edwards

Fox & Partners—Nikki Edwards

Employment boutique strengthens litigation bench with partner hire

Fladgate—Milan Kapadia

Fladgate—Milan Kapadia

Partner appointed to dispute resolution team

Carey Olsen—Louise Stothard

Carey Olsen—Louise Stothard

Employment law offering in Guernsey expands with new hire

NEWS
Law students and graduates can now apply to qualify as solicitors and barristers with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll