Supreme Court considers need to prove serious harm in defamation claims

20 Aug 2019

Tim Smith analyses the crucial judgment for defamation claims in Lachaux v Independent Print [2019] UKSC 27. In concluding that the Defamation Act 2013 introduced an enhanced threshold of serious harm from that established by the previous case law and by requiring it to be determined by reference to the actual facts as to its impact, not merely as to the meaning of the words, the Supreme Court has, through this judgment, strengthened the hand of those that seek to resist defamation claims.

As to the impact of the judgment moving forward;

  • it’s anticipated that more defamation claims will be successfully defended as they don’t meet the threshold of seriousness required;
  • there’s likely to be greater scrutiny as to the evidence adduced of serious financial loss in claims made by companies;
  • we will be closely monitoring developments on the application of the serious harm test as parties test its influence in defamation claims.

Click here to read the full article.

<< Back

Disclaimer: This document does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight issues that may be of interest to clients of BLM. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in any particular case.

Related Expertise

Related Sectors

Related contacts

Tim Smith

Tim Smith

Partner and Head of TMT & Cyber Practice Group,

Who to contact

For more information about any of our news releases, please contact:

Jo Murray
+44 20 7638 2811
+44 20 7865 4849
Email Jo


Not what you are looking for? Click here!