Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
Printer Friendly Version
the last of our series of three posts looking at some of the areas where limitation has been challenged, in most cases, unsuccessfully – with the unsurprising overarching conclusion that the courts will not willingly grant indulgence
when it comes to limitation, we look at the case of Bewry and how the libel limitation period is strictly applied.
Reed Elsevier v Bewry  EWCA Civ 1411Steedman v BBC  EWCA Civ 1534,  All ER (D) 316 (Oct)
The limitation period in libel cases is one year from the date of publication and, as the Court of Appeal in Bewry noted, the deliberately short time period is for good reason:
“… the purpose of a libel action is vindication of a claimant's reputation. A claimant who wishes to achieve this end by swift remedial action will want his action to be heard as soon as possible. Such claims ought therefore to be pursued
with vigour, especially in view of the ephemeral nature of most media publications. These considerations have led to the uniquely short limitation period of one year which applies to such claims and explain why the disapplication of the limitation
period in libel actions is often described as exceptional.”
In Bewry the claimant, relying on LA s 32A, sought disapplication of the one year time limit on the basis that he was a litigant in person who was unaware of the short time limit until he had obtained legal advice and on the assertion that
the defendants had deliberately stalled discussions to deal with the matter so as to ensure the claimant missed the limitation period. The Court of Appeal found the evidence did not support such contentions and overturned the first instance decision
with the result that the claimant’s claim was timebarred.
The courts will apply a strict approach as regards limitation in defamation claims, disapplication of the time limit is for exceptional cases only, such as where the claimant is actively misled by the defendants so as to miss the deadline.
Subscribers to LexisPSL Dispute Resolution can find further details: Court of Appeal overturns disapplication of limitation period in libel claim (Reed Elsevier v Bewry).
Click here for a one week free trial.
0330 161 1234