1. Defamation Flashcards
(17 cards)
Jameel v Wall Street Journal (2006) UKHL 44
Spiller v Joseph (2010) UKSC 53
Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd (2012) UKSC 11
Defamation Act 2013, Section 1
In order to counter the fear that the law of defamation was being invoked by those who had suffered trivial slights to their reputation, s 1 imposes a requirement on actionability that the publication ‘cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant’.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 2
Section 2 of the Act replaces the common law defence of justification with a substantially equivalent defence of truth. This change is a welcome one since the label of justification was positively misleading. All that was required to trigger the common law defence was that the publication be true. There was never a requirement that the defendant be justified in publishing it.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 3
Section 3 of the Act replaces the common law defence of honest comment with a very similar defence of honest opinion. The scope of this defence adopts some of the changes made to the common law defence by Spiller v Joseph [2010]. A danger in the fact that the legislature has proceeded in this way ‒ by substantially restating the common law ‒ is that it is unclear whether the legislature actually meant to change the law in some respect.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 4
Section 4 replaces the Reynolds defence with a statutory defence of ‘publication on a matter of public interest’. Again, this defence is similar to its common law predecessor. One change that this section makes, however, is that whereas the Reynolds defence was conditional upon the defendant acting responsibly in publishing the statement in question, the defence in s 4 requires that the ‘defendant reasonably believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.’ The defence of reportage, which has often been conflated with the Reynolds defence, is recognised in s 4(3).
Defamation Act 2013, Section 5
Website operators are given a defence by s 5. In essence, this defence will be available where the claimant cannot proceed against the person who posted a defamatory statement on the website concerned and the operator failed to remove the statement once it had notice of its existence from the claimant.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 6
Following in the wake of British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010], publishers of defamatory statements in academic journals are afforded a special head of qualified privilege in s 6.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 7
The Act also makes various amendments, sometimes substantial, to the Defamation Act 1996 in so far as the latter Act recognises privileged occasions. These changes, which predominantly concern public reports, are contained in s 7.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 8
An important change is made by s 8. This section concerns the republication rule. It provides that where a statement is republished by its original author, and the republication is essentially the same as the original publication, a new cause of action will not be triggered. This is a significant departure from the position at common law. The main purpose of this change is to make it more likely that defamatory publications will benefit from a limitation defence since relevant republications will no longer result reset the limitation period.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 9
Section 9 makes changes to the law to limit the circumstances in which courts in the United Kingdom can hear cases where the claimant is based outside the European Union.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 10
Section 10 gives extra bite to the defence of innocent dissemination in s 1 of the Defamation Act 1996. Courts are stripped of jurisdiction to hear actions brought against persons who are not authors, editors or publishers unless the court is satisfied that it is not reasonably practical for an action to be brought against the author, editor or publisher.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 11
Jury trials are effectively eliminated in the defamation context by s 11.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 12
Courts are empowered by s 12 to require unsuccessful defendants in defamatory proceedings publish a summary of the judgment.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 13
Courts are also empowered, in s 13, to require certain persons to remove defamatory statements, even if they are not the defendant.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 14
The rule that slanderous publications concerning the chastity of women are actionable without proof of damage is abolished by s 14.
