Defamation Act 2013 (Version in vigour from 2020-12-31 to )
| Currency | No known outstanding effects |
| Coming into Force | 31 December 2020 |
(1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.(2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.(2) Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained of conveys two or more distinct imputations.(3) If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant's reputation.(4) The common law defence of justification is abolished and, accordingly, section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 (justification) is repealed.(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the following conditions are met.(2) The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion.(3) The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published;anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.(5) The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that the defendant did not hold the opinion.(6) Subsection (5) does not apply in a case where the statement complained of was published by the defendant but made by another person (“the author”) ; and in such a case the defence is defeated if the claimant shows that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the author did not hold the opinion.a defence under section 4 (publication on matter of public interest) ;a defence under section 6 (peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal) ;a defence under section 14 of the Defamation Act 1996 (reports of court proceedings protected by absolute privilege) ;a defence under section 15 of that Act (other reports protected by qualified privilege) .(8) The common law defence of fair comment is abolished and, accordingly, section 6 of the Defamation Act 1952 (fair comment) is repealed.the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; andthe defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) , in determining whether the defendant has shown the matters mentioned in subsection (1) , the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.(3) If the statement complained of was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party, the court must in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it.(4) In determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest, the court must make such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate.(5) For the avoidance of doubt, the defence under this section may be relied upon irrespective of whether the statement complained of is a statement of fact or a statement of opinion.(6) The common law defence known as the Reynolds defence is abolished.(1) This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.(2) It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website.it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement,the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement, andthe operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in regulations.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) (a) , it is possible for a claimant to “identify” a person only if the claimant has sufficient information to bring proceedings against the person.make provision as to the action required to be taken by an operator of a website in response to a notice of complaint (which may in particular include action relating to the identity or contact details of the person who posted the statement and action relating to its removal) ;make provision specifying a time limit for the taking of any such action;make provision conferring on the court a discretion to treat action taken after the expiry of a time limit as having been taken before the expiry;make any other provision for the purposes of this section.specifies the complainant's name,sets out the statement concerned and explains why it is defamatory of the complainant,specifies where on the website the statement was posted, andcontains such other information as may be specified in regulations.(7) Regulations may make provision about the circumstances in which a notice which is not a notice of complaint is to be treated as a notice of complaint for the purposes of this section or any provision made under it.may make different provision for different circumstances;are to be made by statutory instrument.(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(10) In this section “regulations” means regulations made by the Secretary of State.(11) The defence under this section is defeated if the
To continue reading
Request your trial