Home / TMT / Reputation management / Defamation

Legal News

Meaning determined in defamation claim by care home employee (Rochester v Ingham House)

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
Published on: 09 April 2019
Published by a LexisNexis TMT expert

Table of contents

  • Background
  • What did the court decide?
  • The first email
  • The DBS referral
  • The second email
  • Case details

Article summary

TMT analysis: The High Court has determined the meaning of three communications concerning a care home employee which are the subject of defamation claims against her former employer. The meaning attributed to the relevant emails and DBS referral were stronger than those proposed by the defendant but fell short of the claimant’s claim that the publications meant that she had lied.

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom

Related documents:

4 News
View More
5 Practice notes
View More
1 Precedents
2 Q&As
Powered by Lexis+®

Related documents:

4 News
View More
5 Practice notes
View More
1 Precedents
2 Q&As

Popular documents

Reputational damage claims—alternative causes of action

Reputational damage claims—alternative causes of actionThis Practice Note considers the relationship between causes of action for reputational damage claims which may provide alternatives to a defamation claim. The claims considered include malicious falsehood, misuse of private information, breach

Defamation

DefamationThe tort of defamation is governed by a mixture of statute and common law. The relevant statutory law is contained in:•the Defamation Act 1952 (DA 1952)•the Defamation Act 1996 (DeA 1996)•the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013)There is no statutory definition of what is defamatory. The

Defamation and social media

Defamation and social mediaThis Practice Note covers defamation in the context of social media. It examines how liability for defamation may arise for individuals, internet service providers (ISPs), website operators and employers and explores defences under the Defamation Act 1996 (DeA 1996), the

Malicious falsehood

Malicious falsehoodThis Practice Note provides an introduction to the tort of malicious falsehood. Unlike a claim for defamation, there is no requirement in a claim for malicious falsehood to prove that the statement complained of is defamatory. Instead, the claimant must prove that: the defendant