Libel meaning

Soriano v Forensic News LLC and others [2023] EWCA Civ 223 What are the practical implications of this case? The English courts may grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain overseas proceedings where a party acts unreasonably. Yet they will not usually exercise that discretion where the foreign claimant is lawfully seeking documents they say they need for their claim. That holds even if the relief pursued abroad is broader than an English court would typically order. Though the dispute concerned defamation, the guidance reaches beyond that field. The Court of Appeal essentially affirmed support for legitimate evidence-gathering and is slow to conclude that recourse to foreign processes to obtain evidence is oppressive. What was the background? The appellant holds both British and Israeli nationality, has lived in the UK since 2003, and became a British citizen in 2009. He issued libel claims against a number of defendants located in the United States. He had sued two US-based respondents for defamation. Later, the respondents...

Wright v Granath [2020] EWHC 51 (QB) What are the practical implications of this case? This matter concerns the operation of the lis pendens (‘related actions’) rule in Article 27 of the 2007 Lugano Convention, and, in particular, the proper criterion for assessing whether a libel claim issued in England and Wales involved the same cause of action as Norwegian proceedings seeking a declaration that the defendant to the libel claim was not liable to pay damages in respect of the publication impugned in the English suit. The court recognised that this was a novel point regarding the application of lis pendens to defamation. Most authority in this sphere deals with contractual disputes, and the claimant maintained it had no application here because of the parties’ ‘asymmetrical’ positions in a tort claim (addressed further below). Confirming that the lis pendens doctrine is not confined to contractual contexts, the court held that the correct approach is to ask whether there exists a significant or substantial degree of commonality or...

Original news Singh v Weayou [2017] EWHC 2102 (QB) Key point This ruling highlights the critical need to provide the court with honest and coherent evidence at all times...

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...

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 defences. Further reading You may wish to consult Duncan and Neill on Defamation (sixth edition, 2025), available subject to subscription. Was the...

This Practice Note has been placed in archive and is retained for reference only. The defamation costs pilot scheme concluded on 31 March 2013. For guidance on costs budgeting, see: Costs budgeting and costs management—overview. What is it? The Scheme obliges participants in defamation actions (that is, actions involving allegations of libel, slander and/or malicious falsehood) to supply the court with a granular projection of forthcoming base costs ('Costs Budget'). Parties must keep these Costs Budgets updated routinely, after which the court will either sanction or decline them. In practice, they set the benchmark for future costs recovery, and the court will not deviate from an approved Costs Budget save for good reason. The Scheme’s purpose is to ensure the court holds sufficient costs information to manage the case so that the parties are on an equal footing and that the costs they incur are proportionate to the claim’s value and the reputational issues (and, from 1 October 2011, public interest issues) in play. The court may therefore...

This set of training resources comprises PowerPoint templates, suitable as the foundation for single or multiple seminars delivering guidance on the law of defamation. They align with the Defamation Act 2013, and topics addressed include: the difference between libel and slander the elements of a defamation claim damage to reputation and serious harm the issues of publication available defences and remedies Trainers are expected to treat these slides as a practical springboard for their presentations, adapting and editing them as necessary so that they suit, and reflect, their specific circumstances. The training materials can be customised. Follow the link below...

Claim No.: HQ [ insert claim number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEKING’S BENCH DIVISIONROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICEMEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST THE HONOURABLE JUDGE [ insert name of judge ][ Insert date(s) of hearings ] 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 ORDER UPON the trial of this Claim having taken place on [ dates ] AND UPON HEARING [ insert name ] of Counsel for the [ Claimant OR Claimants ], and [ insert name ] of Counsel for the Defendant(s), including at the hearing addressing matters that were consequential to...