Defamation Act 2013: You cannot be serious – Tom Rudkin

3 03 2016

Defamation ActOn 1 January 2014, the Defamation Act 2013 came into force in England and Wales, introducing a series of new provisions applicable to the law of libel and slander.  Cue a frenzy of speculation among media and reputation management lawyers as to how the new Act would be interpreted by the courts and, more importantly, what impact it would have for those seeking to protect their reputations in the face of false and damaging allegations. Read the rest of this entry »





Lachaux, the Huffington Post and “Serious Harm” under the Defamation Act 2013 – Jonathan Coad

6 02 2016

the-huffington-postIn a trial which took place in July 2015 Warby J found that the reputation of a foreign national living overseas had suffered “serious harm” as a result of the publication by the Huffington Post of a third party blog on its website about a marital dispute between the claimant and his ex-wife ([2015] EWHC 2242 (QB)). By that decision the High Court elucidated some general principles about how section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 should be applied in the preliminary stages of a defamation claim. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Sobrinho v Impresa: Serious allegations do not always mean serious harm – Nathan Capone

31 01 2016

expresoThe case of Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing ([2016] EWHC 66 (QB)) was a defamation claim in respect of an article in a Portuguese newspaper which alleged illegality on the part of a banker.  Dingemans J held that this had not caused serious harm to the banker’s reputation in England and Wales. Further, the proceedings were an abuse of process, his reputation already having been vindicated in Portugal. Read the rest of this entry »





Theedom and Impresa: Lessons on serious harm – Claire Gill and Isabella Piasecka

29 01 2016

Defamation ActAt first blush, the two most recent libel cases in which the question of serious harm has been tested, yielded contradictory findings.  Both cases were argued on the same day before different Judges at separate trials of preliminary issues. In Theedom v Nourish Training Ltd ([2015] EWHC 3769 (QB)) the court found that the Claimant had satisfied the threshold test of s.1 Defamation Act 2013. In Alvaro Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA ([2016] EWHC 66 (QB)) the court found that the threshold test had not been met and further, that the claim was an abuse of process. Read the rest of this entry »





News: Serious harm, Court of Appeal gives permission to appeal in Lachaux

24 01 2016

Royal-Courts-of-JusticeThe Court of Appeal has given permission to appeal to each of the three defendants against the decision of Warby J in the case of Lachaux v Independent Print ([2015] EWHC 2242 (QB)). Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Theedom v Nourish Training Ltd, “serious harm to reputation” once again established by inference – Hugh Tomlinson QC

4 01 2016

CSPIn the case of Theedom v Nourish Training Ltd ([2015] EWHC 3769 (QB)) HHJ Moloney QC decided, on the trial of a preliminary issue, that the claimant had established serious harm to reputation” for the purposes of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. Once again, the claimant succeeded on a “serious harm” case based almost entirely on inference. Read the rest of this entry »





Serbian Forum Shopper in breach of his duty of full and frank disclosure has permission to serve libel and privacy claim set aside – David Hooper

13 12 2015

David HooperOn 23 November 2015, in the case of Ahuja v Politika Novine ([2015] EWHC 3380 (QB)) Sir Michael Tugendhat set aside an order for service out of the jurisdiction of proceedings for the misuse of private information and libel which had been made by Master Roberts on 31 March 2015 in respect of an article in Politika, a Serbian language newspaper circulating in Serbia and neighbouring countries in hard copy and available in this country only on the internet.  Read the rest of this entry »