Serious harm in the Supreme Court

Independent Print Ltd, the unsuccessful defendant in the case of Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1327 has been granted permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision and subsequent application of Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 (the Act).

Section 1(1) of the Act provides that:

“A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.”

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd case raised the threshold of the ‘serious harm’ test. It required that at an absolute minimum the statement be so seriously defamatory that serious reputational harm could be inferred.

What the case means is that the complained of publication must have caused such serious harm to the claimant’s reputation, or is likely to do so in the future. In layman’s terms the presumption of damage in claims of defamation has been removed.

What the appeal means is that the debate of the Act representing a change in defamation law, or on the other hand that, the Act represents simple arrangement of the law is reignited.

Once the appeal is heard, the answer to the debate will be clear.

If you’d like to know more about this article please send an email to Michael Coyle quoting the article title and any questions you might have, alternatively call the office number on 02380 235 979 or send an enquiry through our contact form.

share this Article

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

Recent Articles

Nike v StockX, NFTs and Counterfeit products

American footwear and apparel company Nike has launched trademark infringement actions against the Detroit-based trainers and streetwear resale platform StockX, after allegedly using Nike’s Intellectual