Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1334 (12 September 2017)

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1334 (12 September 2017)

Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 raises the threshold for actionable defamation from 'substantial' to 'serious' harm but does not abolish the presumption of damage in libel. Serious harm can ordinarily be inferred from the gravity of the defamatory meaning and context, without requiring elaborate evidence or preliminary hearings. The cause of action accrues at publication, and the procedural approach should avoid unnecessary complexity and cost.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 1334
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Bruno Lachaux; Appellant/defendant: Independent Print Limited; Appellant/defendant: Evening Standard Limited; Appellant/defendant: AOL (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) on Preliminary Issues in Defamation
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment varied in reasoning but not in result.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Threshold Under Defamation Act 2013, Presumption of Damage in Libel, Procedural Approach to Serious Harm, Interpretation of S.1(1) Defamation Act 2013, Abuse of Process in Defamation Claims
Defamation Media Law Tort Serious Harm Threshold Under Defamation Act 2013 Presumption of Damage in Libel Procedural Approach to Serious Harm Interpretation of S.1(1) Defamation Act 2013 Abuse of Process in Defamation Claims

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruno Lachaux

Respondent/claimant

Independent Print Limited

Appellant/defendant

Evening Standard Limited

Appellant/defendant

AOL (UK) Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) on Preliminary Issues in Defamation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct interpretation of 'serious harm' under s.1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013?
  2. 2 Does s.1(1) abolish the presumption of damage in libel?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate procedure for determining serious harm in defamation cases?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 raises the threshold for actionable defamation from 'substantial' to 'serious' harm but does not abolish the presumption of damage in libel. Serious harm can ordinarily be inferred from the gravity of the defamatory meaning and context, without requiring elaborate evidence or preliminary hearings. The cause of action accrues at publication, and the procedural approach should avoid unnecessary complexity and cost.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment varied in reasoning but not in result.

Orders

  • Serious harm threshold under s.1(1) is satisfied by inference from the gravity of the defamatory meaning and context.
  • No requirement for elaborate preliminary hearings or direct evidence of serious harm in most libel cases.