City Research Online

Why so serious? Lachaux and the threshold of ‘serious harm’ in section 1 Defamation Act 2013

Bennett, T. (2018). Why so serious? Lachaux and the threshold of ‘serious harm’ in section 1 Defamation Act 2013. Journal of Media Law, 10(1), pp. 1-16. doi: 10.1080/17577632.2018.1446403

Abstract

In Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that s 1 Defamation Act 2013 was intended to “raise the bar” for defamation claims above the standard previously demanded at common law. However, despite finding that this was Parliament’s intention in enacting s 1, the Court held that this intention had not been successfully implemented by the wording of the Act. The notion that libel is a tort that is actionable per se is one that has a lengthy heritage at common law. However, an examination of case law between 2005 and 2013 reveals that libel had ceased to be actionable per se long before the new s 1 appeared on the statute books. The Court of Appeal thus based its ruling on a misunderstanding of the pre-Act common law position, resulting in a failure to interpret the Act in a manner consistent with the Parliamentary intention that the Court identified, thereby frustrating that very intention.

Publication Type: Article
Additional Information: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis inJournal of Media Law on 15 Mar 2018 available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/17577632.2018.1446403
Publisher Keywords: Defamation; libel; actionable per se; s 1 Defamation Act 2013
Subjects: K Law
Departments: The City Law School > Academic Programmes
SWORD Depositor:
[thumbnail of Bennett on Lachaux %28final - for upload to NCL%29.pdf]
Preview
Text - Accepted Version
Download (368kB) | Preview

Export

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

Actions (login required)

Admin Login Admin Login