"LexisLibrary gives us the most relevant and recent cases and always has the latest information on them. It makes research so much easier. We're more cost-effective for our clients and more efficient each day"
Advocates
Access all documents on Defamatory
A statement or content is capable of bearing a defamatory meaning if it has the potential to lower a claimant’s reputation in the eyes of ordinary right-thinking members of society, expose him to contempt, hatred or ridicule or disparage him in his business, trade or profession.
A long line of cases provides various examples of meanings which the court as previously found to be defamatory, including amongst many others, a suggestion of involvement in criminal activity, behaviour in an immoral or unethical manner or incompetence.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
General meetings (including AGMs)—members’ rights—checklist The following table summarises and compares the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) in relation to the rights of members in relation to general meetings (GMs) (including annual general meetings (AGMs)). For more comprehensive information on the provisions see Practice Note: General meetings (including AGMs)—members’ rights. Member right Which company? Type of meeting Voting threshold Limits to provision Action to be taken by company Costs and expenses Requisition a GM and include proposed text of a resolution to be moved (CA 2006, s 303) All companies GM At least 5% of paid-up capital carrying right to vote at meeting. Request must state general nature of business to be dealt with and may include text of a resolution that may properly be moved. Request may be in hard copy or electronic form and must be authenticated. Resolution may not be moved if ineffective, defamatory, frivolous or vexatious. Directors to call GM within 21 days.Meeting to be held no more than 28 days...
Checklist for references STOP PRESS: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published draft guidance on keeping employment records and recruitment and selection which were open for consultation until 5 March 2024, and has removed the employment practices code (first published in March 2022, and last updated in November 2011) and supplementary guidance from its employment information page. For more information, see Q&A: What is the status of the ICO employment practices code? and ICO removes employment practices code and related guidance from its Employment information guidance page, LNB News 15/12/2023 112. This Practice Note will be updated once the ICO draft guidance is finalised. This Checklist canvasses some of the common issues encountered when it comes to requesting or providing an employment reference. For further guidance on references generally, see Practice Note: References. For a template letter of reference from an employer to a prospective new employer concerning an existing or former employee, see Precedent: Letter—employee reference. The existing Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Employment...
Discover our 8 Checklists on Defamatory
The internet and, in particular, social media is a high risk area for defamation litigation. Content posted on blogs, internet forums, online newspaper comment sections and well known social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter can be inaccurate and vicious in character. Anonymity encourages some individuals to dispense with the usual restraints that they might apply to other forms of publication. For a description of the popular social media websites, how they are used by businesses and associated legal issues, see Practice Note: Introduction to social media.Liability for defamatory content posted on social media is not, in principle, restricted to the author (who in any case may be unidentifiable). In certain circumstances liability can extend to an internet service provider (ISP), the website operator or an employer.This Practice Note covers: •What is defamation?•Defamation and social media•Social media and multiple publication•Defences under the Defamation Act 1996 (DeA 1996)•Liability and the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (E-Commerce Regulations 2002), SI 2002/2013•Social media and multiple publicationFurther readingYou may wish to refer...
Failure to re-appoint an auditor—financial years beginning before 1 October 2015 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note summarised the statutory provisions of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) that applied in the event of a company’s failure to re-appoint an auditor in relation to financial years beginning before 1 October 2015. Section 18 and Schedule 5 of the Deregulation Act 2015, which came into force on 1 October 2015, made a number of changes in relation to auditors, which include provisions dealing with a company’s failure to re-appoint an auditor. These provisions have effect in relation to financial years beginning on or after 1 October 2015. For details of the statutory provisions in relation to financial years beginning on or after 1 October 2015, see Practice Note: Failure to re-appoint an auditor. There may be other rules relating to the removal and resignation of an auditor that apply to a listed company, an AIM company or a company with securities that are listed on one of...
Discover our 98 Practice Notes on Defamatory
Music publishing agreement—pro-publisher This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [Insert name of Publisher] a company incorporated in [England] with registered number [company number], whose registered office is at [address] (Publisher); and 2 [Insert name of Writer] of [insert address] (Writer). Background (A) The Writer is a composer of musical works and/or an author of lyrics of literary works; (B) The Publisher is engaged in the business of music publishing throughout the Territory and has, inter alia, facilities for the administration and exploitation of musical works; and (C) The Publisher wishes to acquire and the Writer wishes to grant to the Publisher the exclusive right to the Writer’s share of the Compositions, subject to the terms of this Agreement. It is agreed as follows: 1 Definitions and Interpretation 1.1 In this Agreement: Accounting Period • means each six monthly period ending on 30 June and 31 December; Advance • means all monies paid to the Writer by the Publisher other than royalties. Such...
Email notices and email footers Trading disclosures [registered name] is a [limited company OR limited liability partnership] (number [registered number]) registered in [part of the United Kingdom where registered] whose registered office is at [registered address]. Notices and disclaimers Confidentiality notices [This email, including its contents and attachments, is confidential. If you have received it in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently and securely delete it. Do not use, reproduce or disclose it in any way. OR This email is confidential and is intended only for the recipient identified in its body. Any use, reproduction or disclosure by any person of any part of this email, including its contents and attachments, without the express consent of the sender is not permitted and may constitute a breach of confidentiality.] Disclaimers of views expressed [Any opinions or views [or advice] expressed in this email are personal to the sender and are not to be attributed to the employer or principal. OR Any opinions or views [or advice] presented...
Dive into our 78 Precedents related to Defamatory
In a defamation claim, can a corporate entity claim damages for loss of reputation? In short, a corporate entity can bring a claim in defamation for damage to their corporate or business reputation as long as the damage has resulted in (or is likely to result in) serious financial loss. A corporate entity cannot recover damages for hurt feelings, because a corporate entity has no feelings to hurt: see Duncan and Neill on Defamation, Chapter 25 Damages, Damages to reputation, 25.07. As set out in our Practice Note: Defamation, all claims brought in relation to publications since 1 January 2014, following the implementation of Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013), must satisfy a threshold test for what is defamatory, namely that publication of the statement ‘has caused or is likely to
How do I stop online abuse of my brand Brands and the Internet Brands can exploit the Internet as a platform for cost-effective marketing and rapid business expansion. However, those technologies which help brands gain a global reach also facilitate infringers and criminals misusing brands by way of cybersquatting, selling counterfeit goods, profiting from misdirected customers, etc while hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet. Your brand may also be under threat by critical competitors, customers, employees or pressure groups. There are many facets of online activity that can tarnish your brand, confuse and frustrate customers and ultimately result in a loss of business. Register trade marks and domain names While trade mark registrations are not an essential means to brand protection and enforcement, registrations mean you can take action for trade mark infringement which is usually simpler and cheaper than more evidence-based actions such as passing off in the UK or unfair competition in Europe. Ensure that trade mark and domain name registrations...
See the 15 Q&As about Defamatory
TMT analysis: In this libel case, the defendants offered no substantive defences and instead sought to demonstrate that the claimant had not suffered serious harm to his reputation caused by their publication (as required by section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013)). The claim succeeded with damages, an injunction and an order under DA 2013, s 12 granted. The case contains valuable discussion of the requirements of pleading pre-existing bad reputation as a counter to a plea of serious harm. It also exemplifies a successful plea of serious harm to reputation in circumstances where the claimant relied entirely on inference to make out his case. The judgment ends with useful application of the principles relating to damages and other remedies in defamation claims. A very substantial award of £150,000 was made in this case. Hector Penny is a barrister at 5RB Chambers.
Welcome to this week’s edition of the TMT weekly highlights: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content from across the technology, media and telecoms sectors. These highlights focus on key topics including new technologies, software, cloud computing, internet, outsourcing, music, film & television, publishing, defamation and telecoms.
Read the latest 508 News articles on Defamatory
**Trials are provided to all UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234