Defamatory meaning

This overview sets out and contrasts key provisions of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) concerning members’ rights at general meetings (GMs), including annual general meetings (AGMs). For fuller guidance, see Practice Note: General meetings (including AGMs)—members’ rights. Requisition a GM and include proposed text of a resolution to be moved (CA 2006, s 303) Applicable companies: All companies. Meeting type: GM. Voting requirement: Minimum 5% of paid-up capital with voting rights at the meeting. Limits: The request must outline the general nature of the business and may set out the wording of a resolution that can properly be proposed. Requests can be sent in hard copy or electronically and must be authenticated. A resolution cannot be moved if it is ineffective, defamatory, frivolous or vexatious. Action: Directors must convene a GM within 21 days, with the meeting held no later than 28 days after notice (CA 2006, s 304). If directors do not comply, members may call the meeting within three...

Original news Brown v Bower [2017] EWHC 2637 (QB) Key point The judge observed (at para [44] of the judgment) that this matter vividly exemplifies the difficulty and complexity of deciding whether conduct is, when measured against society’s overall standards, immoral. In particular, he remarked (at para [46]) that the question of whether it is defamatory to assert of a person that they have paid people for consensual sex is contentious, and remains a matter for debate in various quarters still. The court was not invited to determine whether the meaning of the impugned statement was defamatory at common law, but the...

In this issue: Key DR Developments Court information Claims and remedies Costs and funding Cross-border disputes Evidence and disclosure Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR Developments King’s Speech 2024 Key announcements: The Prime Minister’s Office has issued briefing notes on the King’s Speech 2024. They outline the Arbitration Bill, its territorial reach, and steps to implement the 2022 Law Commission’s recommendations on Arbitration Law. Commentary on the Bill’s inclusion is provided by Matthew Saunders, partner at Ashurst LLP, and Jason Raeburn, partner at Paul Hastings LLP—see: LNB News 17/07/2024 63—King’s Speech 2024—key Arbitration announcements. CPRC minutes June 2024 minutes of the CPR Committee meeting: The Civil Procedure Rule Committee met on 7 June 2024 in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference, covering several topics, including changes to CPR 25 (interim remedies and security for costs) and...

In this issue: Horizon scanning Directors Employment contract Pay Tax Prohibited conduct protection at work Diversity and gender pay gap Whistleblowing Union status and obligations Financial services and banking: employment issues Employment tribunals Immigration IRLR Highlights—April 2025 New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® LexTalk®Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Horizon scanning Calls from businesses urging the UK government to moderate its employment law agenda have been largely set aside, with the Employment Rights Bill (ERB) further enhancing workers’ entitlements on 4 March 2025. See Law360: Employment Rights Bill is pro‑worker but not pro‑business. Directors The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has issued the draft Companies (Directors’ Remuneration and Audit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which are undergoing parliamentary sifting as at 4 March 2025. The package is intended to streamline directors’...

This Practice Note explains how the SRA’s regulatory framework applies to firms that interact with online review platforms and comparison websites. The SRA’s guidance overlaps considerably—unsurprising, as some comparison sites also allow users to post reviews. It does not offer views on the pros and cons of using reviews and/or comparison sites, although the SRA appears keen to share data and insights on the advantages of doing so—see: SRA, Customer reviews and comparison websites SRA, Online reviews: How to engage with them, Why engage with online reviews SRA, Comparison websites: How to use them effectively Online reviews Replying to online reviews is a prime chance to: demonstrate you value client feedback underline your high-quality, personalised service bring to the fore features of your firm that may not be immediately apparent to new clients Overseeing reviews and feedback need not be costly or labour-intensive; however, the SRA reports that a large proportion of clients...

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 communications claims from 1 October 2019). It is the substance or essence of the defamatory allegation that needs to be...

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 malicious falsehood, however, the cause of action accrues when the claimant suffers pecuniary loss, meaning the limitation period may not track the date of first publication. In...

Address of Website Operator Dear [ insert organisation name ] Notice and take-down letter We represent [ insert client details ] and write on their instructions. On [ date ], our client became aware that the following statement(s) have appeared on a website you host at [ details of URL ] (the Website): [ Insert statement ] [ Insert statement ] [ Insert statement ] (the Defamatory Statements). A dated [ screenshot AND/OR copy ] is enclosed for your reference. [ The Defamatory Statements remain on the Website as at the date of this letter and continue to be accessible within the jurisdiction. ] [ Where the client is not expressly named in the Defamatory Statements, explain here how the client can be identified from the Defamatory Statements ]...