header-logo header-logo

26 September 2019 / Athelstane Aamodt
Issue: 7857 / Categories: Features , Defamation , Media
printer mail-detail

What next for defamation?

Post-Lachaux, how have the courts been confronting defamation & the serious harm test? Athelstane Aamodt offers an update

  • Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lachaux v Independent Print Media regarding s 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 in June 2019, serious harm case law has continued to evolve as more judges expound upon it and apply it to different cases.

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Lachaux v Independent Print Media [2019] UKSC 27, [2019] All ER (D) 42 (Jun) has settled—at least for now—how s 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) should be interpreted. Section 1(1) says that: ‘A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.’ Section 1(1) does not say what a defamatory statement is; rather, it adds a further test to the already existing tests at common law.

As is well known, Warby J at first instance held that s 1(1) made substantial changes to the law of defamation. It had

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Could an online LLM in Commercial and Technology Law expand your career options?
The controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill has passed its second reading by 304 votes to 203, despite concerted opposition from the legal profession
The presumption of parental involvement is to be abolished, the Lord Chancellor David Lammy has confirmed
A highly experienced chartered legal executive has been prevented from representing her client in financial remedies proceedings, in a case that highlights the continued fallout from Mazur
Plans to commandeer 50%-75% of the interest on lawyers’ client accounts to fund the justice system overlook the cost and administrative burden of this on small and medium law firms, CILEX has warned
back-to-top-scroll