Editor, Solicitors Journal

SERIOUS HARM TO REPUTATION NECESSARY

8 Jan 2019News

A claimant relying on section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 must prove the publication of a statement caused or was likely to cause serious harm to their reputation, as well as proving it was defamatory. The Supreme Court said in Lachaux v Independent Print [2019] UKSC 27 this might require more than the 'inherent tendency' of the words used, including an investigation into the number of people to whom it was published or people among who the claimant had no reputation to be harmed. 8 July 2019

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com

Latest Articles

Post-Ukraine surrogacy and cross-border legal risk

As intended parents move beyond Ukraine, courts are confronting increasingly complex ethical, legal and public policy tensions

Unapproved AI use is widespread in UK law firms

New research reveals the alarming prevalence of unapproved AI tools among UK legal professionals highlighting regulatory challenges ahead

AI can enhance law firms' processes

AI accelerates legal work efficiency but requires rigorous human oversight to maintain accountability and reliability in outcomes

Rodoy v Optical Express: High Court finds defamatory statements substantially true despite serious harm to claimant's reputation

Laser eye surgery campaigner's defamation claim fails as judge upholds 'fraudster' and 'troll' allegations

Cleveland Potash v Drummond: High Court rejects wayleave royalty demand at Boulby mine

Landmark ruling on compensation under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 clarifies the limits of mineral rights holders' bargaining power.

Uriah Woods v The State: Privy Council redraws the boundaries of provocation in Trinidad and Tobago

Privy Council clarifies the objective test for provocation, rejecting the Hong Kong approach.

Burgess v Sikorski: High Court awards deputyship fees as damages under the Fatal Accidents Act in services dependency claim

Professional deputies appointed for two adult sons with learning disabilities; court holds costs are a "necessary corollary" to full compensation

Teixeira v Moaven: High Court finds declarations of trust were 'sham' designed to conceal estate assets

Declarations of trust held void; full beneficial ownership of four London properties restored to deceased's estate

GMC v Grajn: High Court quashes MPT suspension after finding serious under-prosecution

All MPT determinations quashed; fresh tribunal hearing ordered following failure to allege dishonesty against transplant surgeon

DHL v Ignatowicz: EAT remits reinstatement and contributory fault findings over Facebook dismissal

Employment Appeal Tribunal clarifies key principles on contributory conduct and reinstatement.

Solong v Samskip: High Court rules on "such loss" in landmark limitation judgement

Owners entitled to limit liability after Humber collision; Article 4 defence struck out

Fay of London v Axis Specialty Europe: High Court clarifies amendment rules where limitation defence is in play

A claimant cannot sidestep limitation arguments by framing an amendment application under CPR r.17.1 rather than r.17.4, the High Court has confirmed.

Verum Plus v Petroineos: Swiss insolvency assignees win joinder bid but blocked on contract claims

Swiss Article 260 assignees gain standing to pursue English litigation, but non-assignment clauses bar them from the underlying contracts.

SJ Interview: Keith Froud

Keith Froud, Global Co-CEO and International Chief Executive of Eversheds Sutherland, has spent over three decades in corporate M&A before moving into global leadership. In...