header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 June 2019 / Romana Canneti
Issue: 7845 / Categories: Opinion , Defamation , Media
printer mail-detail

Rewriting the Defamation Act?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll