TMT analysis: The court held that the claimant, Fiona George was the subject of false allegations of fact made maliciously by her former boss, Lynn Cannell, to two third parties. However, despite this, her claims were dismissed because they were found not to be serious enough. In particular, the libel and slander claims failed on the basis that neither publication found to have been made had caused or were likely to cause serious harm to Ms George’s reputation within section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013). The malicious falsehood claim failed on a similar basis; the court did not consider that Ms George had suffered the necessary special damage (or damage within section 3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 (DA 1952)) to found the claim. The judgment includes a number of useful findings for practitioners to consider, including interesting commentary in relation to the scope of the ‘serious harm’ test in defamation claims,...
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE
To read the full news article, register for a free Lexis+ trial
**Trials are provided to all ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
* denotes a required field
Particulars of claim (defamation)Claim No.: HQ [insert number]IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEKING’S BENCH DIVISIONROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICEMEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LISTParties:(1)[Insert full name of first claimant](2)[[Insert full name of second claimant]]        [Claimant OR Claimants]and[Insert full
¶Ù±ð´Ú²¹³¾²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô—d±ð´Ú±ð²Ô³¦±ð²õDefencesThere are a number of substantive defences to a defamation claim, the majority of which are now, since the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013), statutory. Any number of defences may be relied upon together in answer to a claim.TruthThere is a presumption that defamatory words
Reputational damage claims—alternative causes of actionSTOP PRESS—Impact of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023: This document contains references to retained EU law (REUL) and associated terms introduced by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in connection with Brexit. From 1
Scotland—the process for applying for sequestrationSequestration in Scotland is the legal process by which an insolvent debtor’s estate is gathered in, realised and then distributed among their creditors by a trustee appointed for that purpose. The process requires that a formal award of
0330 161 1234