Table of contents
- What are the practical implications of the judgment?
- What was the background?
- What did the Supreme Court decide?
Article summary
TMT analysis: Adrienne Page QC and Godwin Busuttil, barristers at 5RB, examine the Supreme Court’s decision in Lachaux v Independent Print and another that section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) means that a statement which would previously have been regarded as defamatory, because of its inherent tendency to cause some harm to reputation, is not to be so regarded unless it has caused, or is likely to cause, harm which is serious. Applying that construction of DA 2013, s 1(1), the court upheld the finding that Mr Lachaux had demonstrated as a fact that the relevant publications had caused serious harm to his reputation.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial