Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd

Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 gives statutory effect to the threshold of seriousness established in Thornton, raising it to 'serious' harm, but does not abolish the presumption of damage in libel, nor alter the accrual of the cause of action at publication; serious reputational harm can be inferred from the gravity of the defamatory meaning and context without elaborate evidence, and the claimant succeeded as the published statements were seriously defamatory and caused serious harm.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Bruno Lachaux; Defendant/appellant: Independent Print Limited; Defendant/appellant: Evening Standard Limited; Defendant/appellant: AOL (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Preliminary Issue Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for claimant upheld.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Threshold, Presumption of Damage, Limitation, Reference and Meaning, Abuse of Process, Threshold Hearings, Inference of Harm
Defamation Media Law Tort Serious Harm Threshold Presumption of Damage Limitation Reference and Meaning Abuse of Process +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruno Lachaux

Claimant/respondent

Independent Print Limited

Defendant/appellant

Evening Standard Limited

Defendant/appellant

AOL (UK) Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Preliminary Issue Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation and application of s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether publication caused or was likely to cause serious harm to claimant's reputation
  3. 3 Procedural approach to threshold hearings for serious harm

Ratio Decidendi

Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 gives statutory effect to the threshold of seriousness established in Thornton, raising it to 'serious' harm, but does not abolish the presumption of damage in libel, nor alter the accrual of the cause of action at publication; serious reputational harm can be inferred from the gravity of the defamatory meaning and context without elaborate evidence, and the claimant succeeded as the published statements were seriously defamatory and caused serious harm.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for claimant upheld.

Orders

  • Judge's ruling in favour of claimant on preliminary issue by reference to s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013 affirmed.
  • Jameel abuse contention rejected.