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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll