Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd

Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 requires the claimant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. This is a factual question to be determined by evidence and inference, not merely by the tendency of the words. In this case,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Bruno Lachaux; Defendant: Independent Print Limited; Defendant: Evening Standard Limited; Defendant: AOL (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Trial of Preliminary Issues (reference, Meaning, Serious Harm, Abuse of Process)
Outcome
Claims in respect of the Independent, i, and Evening Standard articles, and the first Huffington Post article succeed on the issue of serious harm; the claim in respect of the second Huffington Post article fails. The Jameel abuse argument fails except as to the second AOL article. Defences relying on other...
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Requirement, Reference in Defamation, Meaning in Defamation, Abuse of Process (jameel), Evidence Admissibility, Mitigation of Damages
Defamation Media Law Tort Serious Harm Requirement Reference in Defamation Meaning in Defamation Abuse of Process (jameel) Evidence Admissibility +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruno Lachaux

Claimant

Independent Print Limited

Defendant

Evening Standard Limited

Defendant

AOL (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Trial of Preliminary Issues (reference, Meaning, Serious Harm, Abuse of Process)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of referred to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the words bore a defamatory meaning
  3. 3 Whether the publication caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation under s 1(1) Defamation Act 2013

Ratio Decidendi

Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 requires the claimant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. This is a factual question to be determined by evidence and inference, not merely by the tendency of the words. In this case, the publications by Independent Print Limited, Evening Standard Limited, and the first Huffington Post article by AOL (UK) Limited caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation. The second Huffington Post article did not cross the threshold. Other publications to similar effect are inadmissible in mitigation of damages. The pursuit of the claims (except the second AOL...

Court Disposition

Claims in respect of the Independent, i, and Evening Standard articles, and the first Huffington Post article succeed on the issue of serious harm; the claim in respect of the second Huffington Post article fails. The Jameel abuse argument fails except as to the second AOL article. Defences relying on other...

Orders

  • Claim in respect of the second Huffington Post article dismissed for failure to meet serious harm threshold.
  • Defences of IPL and ESL relying on other publications struck out.