The judge recognised that any definition of “defamatory” must incorporate some qualification or threshold of seriousness, so as to exclude trivial claims. He preferred the following definition: 

“the publication of which he complains may be defamatory of him because it substantially affects in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards him, or has a tendency so to do”.

This interpretation provides defendants with another weapon in their armoury. Plus in an increasingly pro-publisher environment, coupled with the prospect of claimants not being able to recover success fees and ATE insurance premiums from defendants, it may make potential claimants think twice before commencing an action.

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

Publishers welcomed the move but the oncoming election has led to the reforms being derailed. A number of MPs have also openly opposed the reforms because the proposals would not adequately protect the “little guy” who sues the publisher. Does this mean these same MPs disagree with the conclusions and recommendations of the Jackson report? It is only a matter of time before defendants are given greater protection against liability to pay success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums in defamation cases, and publishers will feel that not passing this legislation is an opportunity missed.

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com