header-logo header-logo

20 June 2019 / Romana Canneti
Issue: 7845 / Categories: Opinion , Defamation , Media
printer mail-detail

Rewriting the Defamation Act?

In a boost to free speech & the Fourth Estate the Supreme Court has come off the bench on defamation. Romana Canneti provides the commentary

We waited a long time for this one, but it’s been worth the wait. Last week, the Supreme Court clarified the ‘serious harm’ threshold test set by s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and another  [2019] UKSC 27, [2019] All ER (D) 42 (Jun). Not the catchiest topline perhaps, but keep reading, this matters to us both. The justices’ long-awaited ruling revives the heady spirit of Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill back in 2010 which sought to ‘reduce the chilling effect on freedom of expression and…to encourage the free exchange of ideas and information, whilst providing an effective and proportionate remedy to anyone whose reputation is unfairly damaged’.

The Defamation Act 2013 came into force in January 2014, adorned with the preamble that it was an Act ‘to amend the law of defamation’. Change was sorely needed: an end to forum shopping by

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

DAC Beachcroft—Clare Dewar

DAC Beachcroft—Clare Dewar

DAC Beachcroft strengthens Scottish real estate capabilitywith partner appointment

Womble Bond Dickinson—Brendan Ryan

Womble Bond Dickinson—Brendan Ryan

Womble Bond Dickinson appoints Brendan Ryan as partner in Public Law Projects team

Parklane Plowden Chambers—five appointments

Parklane Plowden Chambers—five appointments

Parklane Plowden Chambers welcomes five new barristers

NEWS
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
Police powers targeting concealed identities at protests come with procedural conditions that could determine whether prosecutions succeed
back-to-top-scroll