Defamation Act 2013

The Defamation Act 2013 reformed the law of defamation in England and Wales, introducing a requirement of ‘serious harm’ for a statement to be defamatory and creating new statutory defences. The Act was enacted in response to concerns about ’libel tourism’ and the chilling effect of defamation law on freedom of expression, following high-profile cases such as Jameel v Dow Jones and the McLibel case. The Act replaced the common law defences of justification, fair comment, and fair reporting with statutory defences of truth, honest opinion, and publication on a matter of public interest. The Act also introduced a new defence for operators of websites and required claimants to show that England and Wales was the most appropriate jurisdiction for bringing a claim.

Legal area: Tort law provides remedies for civil wrongs causing harm or loss, including negligence, defamation, nuisance, and occupiers’ liability.

Citation: Defamation Act 2013 (2013 c 26)

Full text: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26

Key Provisions

• Section 1: Serious harm (requirement for statement to cause serious harm to reputation)
• Section 2: Defence of truth (replaces common law justification)
• Section 3: Defence of honest opinion (replaces fair comment)
• Section 4: Public interest defence (Reynolds privilege codified)
• Section 5: Operators of websites (defence for site operators)
• Section 8: Single publication rule (prevents multiple limitation periods)
• Section 9: Trial to be without jury unless court orders otherwise

Significance

The Defamation Act 2013 significantly reformed English defamation law. The serious harm test (section 1) raised the threshold for defamation claims. In Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2019), the Supreme Court held that serious harm must be proved to the civil standard of proof, not merely presumed. The public interest defence (section 4) replaced the Reynolds privilege, though courts continue to apply the Reynolds factors as guidance. The single publication rule prevents claimants from bringing claims for each new download of an online article, protecting archives. The Act has reduced the number of defamation claims but has not eliminated ’libel tourism’.