News: Defamation Bill, Commons reject amendment to limit ability of corporations to sue

17 04 2013

Helen GrantThe House of Commons yesterday considered the Defamation Bill and rejected the Lords amendment limit the ability of corporations to sue for libel. Lords Amendment No.2 was entitled “Non-natural persons” and provided that companies could only sue for libel if they could “show that the publication of the words or matters complained of has caused, or is likely to cause, substantial financial loss to the claimant”. After a short debate the House approved a Government motion to disagree with Amendment No.2 by 298 votes to 230.

However, in the course of her speech, the Justice Minister Helen Grant said that she was “aware of the strength of feeling that exists on this matter and on whether the Bill should contain a provision requiring non-natural persons trading for profit to show substantial financial loss”.  She confirmed that the Government was

“prepared to consider actively that aspect of the Lords amendment further, and we will listen carefully to the views expressed in both Houses“.

The vote was condemned by Libel Reform campaigners and described by the Guardian under the rather misleading headline “Key libel reform thwarted as Conservatives block defamation bill

As we pointed out in a post on Sunday, the version of the “Non-natural persons” clause inserted by the House of Lords did not entirely reflect the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Defamation Bill in that it did not extend the “non-profit” exemption to all companies but only to “other non-natural persons”.

The Commons agreed to remove the House of Lords “Puttnam amendments” without a vote and approved the remaining Amendments, 3 to14.  In relation to the amendment to the defence of “Publication in the Public Interest” – which substituted a test of “reasonably belief” in public interest for the previous version “acting responsibly”.  As suggested in our earlier post, the Minister did make a “Pepper v Hart” statement about this clause, saying

“My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has tabled an amendment proposing that the test should be whether the defendant had reasonably decided that publication was in the public interest. That point was debated in the other place, and I believe that the concern underlying his amendment might be that the current wording, “reasonably believed”, could make the test too subjective and result in arguments about the defendant’s motive. I can give him a clear reassurance that we do not consider these amendments to be justified. The defendant’s belief and his motive are not the same thing.

The courts have made it clear in cases such as Flood that considerations about motive are usually irrelevant, so it is highly unlikely that they would entertain them if any such arguments were to arise. We are satisfied that our wording accurately captures the essence of the Flood judgment. In addition, the emphasis that the Government have placed—in debates, and which I reiterate today—on our intention to reflect Flood will leave the courts in no doubt that that is the case”. (emphasis added)

The Bill will now return to the House of Lords under the “ping pong” procedure.

About these ads

Actions

Information

4 responses

17 04 2013
Evan Harris

You are correct to criticise the Guardian headline ["Key libel reform thwarted as Conservatives block defamation bill"] as misleading in almost every respect because it was not thwarted, it was not the Conservatives and the bill was not blocked.

However your own headline ["News: Defamation Bill, Commons reject amendment to limit ability of corporations to sue"] has the tendency to mislead because, if one accepts the thrust of your article – that the Government is seeking to accept restrictions on the ability of “for-profit” companies to sue in libel, and that the Lords amendment as drafted failed to do this – then the Commons had to reject the amendment. This is because – under the rules of ping-pong between the two Houses, amendments can only be amended at a later stage in one house if they have been rejected (or amended) in the other House. So it was not open to the Commons to accept (agree with) the amendment and still re-amend it in the other House.

The key point is that in the coded language of the way these things work, as you point out, the Government is going to accept that part of the amendment, but a different drafting of it.

Evan Harris

Interest: Co-founder and member of steering group, Libel Reform Campaign

18 04 2013
Elaine Decoulos

Where’s Hacked Off? What’s their position on the single publication rule in The Defamation Bill? It’s panacea to the discredited British press and contrary to the European Convention. Alastair Brett once told me he was going to take me to Europe over it. Didn’t he try on another case and lose? No hard feelings Alastair.

Pity LJ Leveson was not interested in this. In the age of the internet with the British press extending their worldwide reach, I see clouds ahead.

22 04 2013
Law and Media Round Up – 22 April 2013 | Inforrm's Blog

[...] reported by Inforrm here, the Commons agreed to remove the House of Lords “Puttnam amendments” without a vote and [...]

26 04 2013
News: Defamation Act 2013 receives Royal Assent | Inforrm's Blog

[...] the ability of corporations and those performing public functions to sue for libel.  The Commons overturned this on 16 April 2013 but the Government introduced a compromise in the House of Lords on 24 April 2013 [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,512 other followers

%d bloggers like this: