header-logo header-logo

Rewriting the Defamation Act?

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

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 overseas

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll