5RB
3 Experts
7 Contributions by 5RB
PRACTICE NOTES
ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note outlines the data protection framework prior to 25 May 2018 and reflects the position under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998). It is provided for background reference only and is not maintained.
Information Commissioner
Under the DPA 1998, the Information Commissioner and officials at the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) are responsible for enforcement. The Commissioner reports directly to Parliament.
promote sound practice and compliance with the DPA 1998 by data controllers
publish information and provide advice
produce codes of practice
international co-operation:
with the European Commission and supervisory authorities in other European Economic Area (EEA) states
in respect of the United Kingdom’s international obligations
concerning the Council of Convention for the Protection of
Information Law
PRACTICE NOTES
The ordinary time limit for defamation and malicious falsehood claims
A claimant has one year to issue a defamation claim from the point when the cause of action arises, namely the date the defamatory statement is first made public (section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), inserted by section 5 of the Defamation Act 1996). The Court of Appeal in Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey confirmed that a claim is treated as ‘brought’ on the day the claim form is first delivered to the court office, even if the office properly declines to issue it because the whole of the appropriate fee has not been paid. For libel, the claimant’s ignorance of any publication at the time is irrelevant to accrual, and so does not postpone the start of the limitation period applicable to their claim. In most varieties of slander and
TMT
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note explores how publication operates within claims for defamation or malicious falsehood. It surveys key case law and legislation, and considers who might be primarily and secondarily accountable for publication, what amounts to publication, the nature of publication on the internet, and jurisdictional questions...
Publication as an ingredient of the tort of defamation
For libel or slander, it is fundamental that a defamatory statement is communicated to someone other than the claimant. A written publication occurs only once a third party has read and understood the words. An oral publication arises when a third party apprehends and understands them. In practice, a claimant often issues one claim covering multiple publications. Each communication is, in principle, a distinct publication giving rise to its own cause of action, though section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) moderates this for limitation purposes (see
TMT
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note addresses the key practical steps that arise when pursuing a defamation claim, such as: pinpointing a defamatory statement; deciding whether it amounts to libel or slander; and evaluating the overall suitability of interim relief. It thoroughly reviews the effect of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) on both claimants and defendants, and sets out practical tactics for the procedural conduct of a defamation case.
Defamation Act 2013
Before DA 2013 came into force, defamation proceedings had a reputation for technicality and disproportionate cost, chiefly because arguments centred on the meaning of the impugned words. The government, reacting to a wave of negative media commentary that English defamation law unduly favoured claimants, enacted DA 2013. The Act brought in a suite of reforms, making defamation a tort grounded equally in common law and statute, and, through codification, abolishing several common law
TMT
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note provides an introduction to the tort of malicious falsehood.
Unlike a defamation claim, a malicious falsehood action does not require proof that the words complained of are defamatory. Instead, the claimant must show the following three elements:
the defendant published an untrue statement about the claimant;
the publication was malicious;
and the statement caused actual pecuniary loss, or the case falls within section 3 of the Defamation Act 1952 (DA 1952).
The tort of malicious falsehood is governed by a mixture of statute and the common law. The relevant statutory provisions are contained in DA 1952, whereas the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) contains no provisions relevant to malicious falsehood.
Malicious or injurious falsehood (sometimes, and confusingly, called 'trade libel') is not concerned with reputation. It is a separate tort from defamation, aimed at the publication of
TMT
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note
Addresses defamation in the sphere of social media. It considers when individuals, internet service providers (ISPs), website operators and employers could incur liability for defamatory material, and outlines defences available under the Defamation Act 1996 (DeA 1996), the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (E-Commerce Regulations 2002), SI 2002/2013, the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) and the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013 (DOW Regulations 2013), SI 2013/3028. The internet, and social media in particular, is a high-risk arena for defamation disputes. Posts on blogs, internet forums, online newspaper comment areas and well-known social networking platforms such as Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) can be inaccurate and malicious in nature. Anonymity prompts some people to abandon the normal cautions they would apply to other forms of publication. For a description of the popular social media sites, how businesses use them and the
TMT
PRACTICE NOTES
Defences
There are several substantive defences to a defamation action and, since the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013), most are now statutory. Multiple defences can be advanced together in answer to a claim.
Truth
Defamatory statements are presumed to be untrue, and the onus of proving their truth rests with the defendant. Showing that the substance of the defamatory statement is true is a complete defence. The defence formerly known as justification was given statutory effect by DA 2013, s 2; the common law defence was abolished and section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 repealed.
Pleading and procedural matters in defamation proceedings are governed by CPR PD 53B, which contains particular requirements for truth defences. CPR PD 53B replaced CPR PD 53 with effect from 1 October 2019 (see News Analyses: 109th practice direction update—July to October 2019 and New rules for media and
TMT
5 Contributions by 5RB Experts
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note
It sets out guidance on applying the Protocol. It covers:
when the Protocol operates
its objectives and scope
typical outcomes of non-compliance
how it relates to limitation
The Protocol replaced the Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation Claims. For how it differs from that earlier regime, see News Analysis: Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims. In addition to defamation, the Protocol extends to a range of other media and communications claims which, before 2019, were not governed by a dedicated pre-action protocol. It formed part of broader reforms to media and communications procedure commencing on 1 October 2019, which also introduced a new CPR 53 and a new practice direction. For more on these changes, see News Analysis: New rules for media and communications claims from 1 October 2019...
TMT
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note provides an overview of media content regulation in the UK.
The primary media regulators are:
Broadcasting (television and radio) — Ofcom
Press and magazines — Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO)
Advertising — Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)
Cinema and video — British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)
Video on demand (VoD) — Ofcom
Video-sharing platforms (VSPs) — Ofcom
Social media platforms and search engines — Ofcom
Broadcasting
Ofcom oversees television and radio programme content by setting and enforcing codes that broadcasters must comply with. The key code for editorial standards is the Ofcom Broadcasting Code (OBC). Broadcast advertising content is handled by the ASA—see Advertising below.
In November 2025, Ofcom sought input on reforming broadcast regulation, inviting views on updates in three broad areas:
licensing
advertising (with an emphasis on the volume permitted on
TMT
PRECEDENTS
Claim Number: HQ [ insert number ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING’S BENCH DIVISION ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Parties:
(1) [ Insert full name of first claimant ] (2) [ Insert full name of second claimant ] [ Claimant OR Claimants ] against [ Insert full name of defendant ] Defendant
Particulars of Claim
The [ Claimant OR Claimants ]
At all material times, the [ First ] Claimant has held the role of [ role or nature of work of the First Claimant ]. [ In addition, the First Claimant serves as [ office or post ] of the Second Claimant [ if the second claimant is a corporation ] ].
[ The Second Claimant was formed on [ date ] and conducts business as [ set out the nature of the second claimant’s business or services ]. ]
The
TMT
PRECEDENTS
Claim No.: HQ [ insert claim number ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
PARTIES:
(1) [ Insert full name of claimant/first claimant ]
(2) [ [ Insert full name of second claimant ] ]
[ Claimant OR Claimants ]
and
[ Insert full name of defendant ]
Defendant
REPLY
Save for the admissions contained within it and any averments expressly accepted below, the [ Claimant joins OR Claimants join ] issue with the Defendant upon his Defence. References to paragraphs are to the Defence.
The [ Claimant denies OR Claimants deny ] that the words complained of, in the meanings alleged at paragraph 8.1 of the Defence, are true. Without limiting the breadth of that denial as regards the particulars of truth advanced in support of those imputations, the [ Claimant pleads OR Claimants plead ] as follows:
TMT
PRECEDENTS
The purpose of the claim form
The claim form commences proceedings. It sets out the key information for the case, including the court reference to be used on all subsequent court documents, the identities of the parties, the relief sought, the particulars of claim (including any claim for interest), and the claimant’s contact details (typically the claimant’s solicitor). General guidance on the content of a claim form is available in the Practice Note: Claim form—the contents.
This Precedent offers a template with suggested wording for use in a defamation claim. It is intended to assist with the particular issues to consider when completing a claim form for such proceedings. The claim form forms part of a suite of Precedents and should be read alongside:
Particulars of claim (defamation)
Defence (defamation)
Reply (defamation)
Final Order (defamation)
In particular, it should be considered with the Precedent: Particulars of claim
TMT
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
