Defamation and Malicious Falsehood

Libel is written defamation including printed publications, emails, social media posts, and other permanent records. Slander is spoken defamation including verbal statements and gestures. Libel is generally more serious because permanent records cause greater and more lasting harm. For libel, you don’t need to prove actual damage (subject to serious harm requirement). For slander, you usually must prove financial loss unless the slander falls into specific categories including accusations of criminal conduct, professional unfitness, or certain diseases.

You must prove the statement was defamatory (lowering your reputation), identified you, was published to third parties, and caused or is likely to cause serious harm to your reputation. Companies must prove or be likely to prove serious financial loss. The defendant can then raise defences. If they prove truth, honest opinion, or public interest, the claim fails even if technically defamatory. Defamation Act 2013 introduced the serious harm requirement, making minor reputation damage insufficient for claims.

Truth is a complete defence. If statements are substantially true, claims fail regardless of harm caused. Honest opinion protects genuinely held opinions on matters of public interest based on true facts. Public interest defence protects publications reasonably believed to be in the public interest. Other defences include privilege (absolute for court proceedings and Parliament, qualified for certain reports), offer of amends, and operators of websites defence. Website operators aren’t liable for users’ posts if they comply with regulations about responding to complaints.

Yes, online defamation including social media posts, blog comments, and reviews can be sued for. However, identifying anonymous defendants can be difficult. You may need court orders requiring platforms to disclose user details. Website operators have defences if they quickly remove defamatory content after notification. Many platforms have their own reporting procedures. Sometimes platform complaints processes resolve matters without legal action. Time limits for defamation claims are strict, so act quickly if platforms don’t remove content.

Defamation claims are expensive. Even straightforward cases involve significant costs if they proceed to trial. Complex High Court defamation trials are substantially more expensive. We’ll discuss likely costs at each stage. These costs make defamation litigation risky even for strong claims. Most defamation claims settle before trial once defendants understand their defences won’t succeed. We provide detailed cost estimates and realistic advice on cost-benefit analysis before you commit to litigation.

Malicious falsehood involves false statements causing financial loss even where they’re not defamatory. Examples include false statements that a business has ceased trading, products are dangerous, or contracts have been breached. Unlike defamation, malicious falsehood doesn’t require reputation damage. You must prove the statement was false, published maliciously (not necessarily with spite, but knowingly false or recklessly made), and caused or is likely to cause financial loss. Malicious falsehood is useful when statements don’t lower reputation but still damage business interests.

Defamation claims must be brought within one year of publication. This time limit is much shorter than most civil claims’ six-year limit. Courts can extend the deadline but this is difficult and exceptional. You must act very quickly if considering defamation claims. Multiple publications can create separate causes of action. For example, each time someone shares a defamatory social media post may be a separate publication. However, single publication rule means website articles are treated as published once, not continuously. Time starts from first publication.