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.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE
To read the full news article, register for a free Lexis+ trial
**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.
* denotes a required field
Do you have a letter of claim (cease and desist) letter for slander damaging professional reputation?We do not have a Precedent letter of claim which relates specifically to slander, but you may be able to adapt the following Precedents from our defamation content set for your purposes:•Letter of
Particulars of claim (defamation)Claim No.: HQ [insert number]IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEKING’S BENCH DIVISIONROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICEMEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LISTParties:(1)[Insert full name of first claimant](2)[[Insert full name of second claimant]]        [Claimant OR Claimants]and[Insert full
¶Ù±ð´Ú²¹³¾²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô—d±ð´Ú±ð²Ô³¦±ð²õDefencesThere are a number of substantive defences to a defamation claim, the majority of which are now, since the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013), statutory. Any number of defences may be relied upon together in answer to a claim.TruthThere is a presumption that defamatory words
DefamationThe tort of defamation is governed by a mixture of statute and common law. The relevant statutory law is contained in:•the Defamation Act 1952 (DA 1952)•the Defamation Act 1996 (DeA 1996)•the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013)There is no statutory definition of what is defamatory. The
0330 161 1234