Defamation Act 2013
EMANA
!
DEFAMATION ACT 2013
!
The Defamation Act 2013 enacts significant reform, but does not try to replace the common law and start afresh. At the time of July 2013 the Act has not yet
‘commenced’ (came into force), so that for the moment, the law remains strictly unchanged but it received a royal assent in April by Lord McNally stated the new act will take effect on 1 January 2014, bravely tries to codify large parts of case law as well as introducing some modest reforms.The Defamation Act 2013 creates a new statutory defence for publishers to claim that allegedly defamatory statements constituted, or
"formed part of", comments "on a matter of public interest" and that they "reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest”.
Serious harm:
Under the Defamation Act, section 1(1) states that a statement can be said to be defamatory ‘unless if its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to individual or businesses' reputation. However, only if businesses have suffered, or are likely to suffer, "serious financial loss", then they can bring a claim of defamation against commentators. A claimant will need to satisfy the court that the imputation, context, nature, extent and impact of the publication are such that significant reputational damage has been suffered.Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd ; Sim v Stretch ;
Jameel v Dow Jones & Co
Truth:
Justification has been abolished in favour of statutory truth defense the defendant has to prove that ‘the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true’; Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd . When the defence of truth is raised, there will be two issues: i) what imputation (or imputations) are actually conveyed by the statement; and ii) whether the imputation (or imputations) conveyed are substantially true. The defence will apply where the imputation is one of fact. S2(2) and (3) replace section 5 of the
!
DEFAMATION ACT 2013
!
The Defamation Act 2013 enacts significant reform, but does not try to replace the common law and start afresh. At the time of July 2013 the Act has not yet
‘commenced’ (came into force), so that for the moment, the law remains strictly unchanged but it received a royal assent in April by Lord McNally stated the new act will take effect on 1 January 2014, bravely tries to codify large parts of case law as well as introducing some modest reforms.The Defamation Act 2013 creates a new statutory defence for publishers to claim that allegedly defamatory statements constituted, or
"formed part of", comments "on a matter of public interest" and that they "reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest”.
Serious harm:
Under the Defamation Act, section 1(1) states that a statement can be said to be defamatory ‘unless if its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to individual or businesses' reputation. However, only if businesses have suffered, or are likely to suffer, "serious financial loss", then they can bring a claim of defamation against commentators. A claimant will need to satisfy the court that the imputation, context, nature, extent and impact of the publication are such that significant reputational damage has been suffered.Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd ; Sim v Stretch ;
Jameel v Dow Jones & Co
Truth:
Justification has been abolished in favour of statutory truth defense the defendant has to prove that ‘the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true’; Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd . When the defence of truth is raised, there will be two issues: i) what imputation (or imputations) are actually conveyed by the statement; and ii) whether the imputation (or imputations) conveyed are substantially true. The defence will apply where the imputation is one of fact. S2(2) and (3) replace section 5 of the