Ukpga 20130026 en PDF
Ukpga 20130026 en PDF
Ukpga 20130026 en PDF
CHAPTER 26
5.75
Defamation Act 2013
CHAPTER 26
CONTENTS
Defences
2 Truth
3 Honest opinion
4 Publication on matter of public interest
5 Operators of websites
6 Peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal etc
7 Reports etc protected by privilege
Jurisdiction
9 Action against a person not domiciled in the UK or a Member State etc
10 Action against a person who was not the author, editor etc
Trial by jury
11 Trial to be without a jury unless the court orders otherwise
Slander
14 Special damage
General provisions
15 Meaning of publish and statement
16 Consequential amendments and savings etc
17 Short title, extent and commencement
ELIZABETH II c. 26
B E IT ENACTED by the Queens most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1 Serious harm
(1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to
cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
(2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades
for profit is not serious harm unless it has caused or is likely to cause the
body serious financial loss.
Defences
2 Truth
(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the
imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
(2) Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained
of conveys two or more distinct imputations.
(3) If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the
defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations
which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown
to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimants reputation.
(4) The common law defence of justification is abolished and, accordingly, section
5 of the Defamation Act 1952 (justification) is repealed.
2 Defamation Act 2013 (c. 26)
3 Honest opinion
(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the
following conditions are met.
(2) The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of
opinion.
(3) The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in
general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.
(4) The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the
basis of
(a) any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was
published;
(b) anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published
before the statement complained of.
(5) The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that the defendant did not hold
the opinion.
(6) Subsection (5) does not apply in a case where the statement complained of was
published by the defendant but made by another person (the author); and in
such a case the defence is defeated if the claimant shows that the defendant
knew or ought to have known that the author did not hold the opinion.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b) a statement is a privileged statement if
the person responsible for its publication would have one or more of the
following defences if an action for defamation were brought in respect of it
(a) a defence under section 4 (publication on matter of public interest);
(b) a defence under section 6 (peer-reviewed statement in scientific or
academic journal);
(c) a defence under section 14 of the Defamation Act 1996 (reports of court
proceedings protected by absolute privilege);
(d) a defence under section 15 of that Act (other reports protected by
qualified privilege).
(8) The common law defence of fair comment is abolished and, accordingly,
section 6 of the Defamation Act 1952 (fair comment) is repealed.
5 Operators of websites
(1) This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the
operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.
(2) It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted
the statement on the website.
(3) The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that
(a) it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted
the statement,
(b) the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the
statement, and
(c) the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance
with any provision contained in regulations.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), it is possible for a claimant to identify
a person only if the claimant has sufficient information to bring proceedings
against the person.
(5) Regulations may
(a) make provision as to the action required to be taken by an operator of
a website in response to a notice of complaint (which may in particular
include action relating to the identity or contact details of the person
who posted the statement and action relating to its removal);
(b) make provision specifying a time limit for the taking of any such action;
(c) make provision conferring on the court a discretion to treat action taken
after the expiry of a time limit as having been taken before the expiry;
(d) make any other provision for the purposes of this section.
(6) Subject to any provision made by virtue of subsection (7), a notice of complaint
is a notice which
(a) specifies the complainants name,
(b) sets out the statement concerned and explains why it is defamatory of
the complainant,
(c) specifies where on the website the statement was posted, and
(d) contains such other information as may be specified in regulations.
(7) Regulations may make provision about the circumstances in which a notice
which is not a notice of complaint is to be treated as a notice of complaint for
the purposes of this section or any provision made under it.
(8) Regulations under this section
4 Defamation Act 2013 (c. 26)
Jurisdiction
10 Action against a person who was not the author, editor etc
(1) A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for
defamation brought against a person who was not the author, editor or
publisher of the statement complained of unless the court is satisfied that it is
not reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the author, editor
or publisher.
(2) In this section author, editor and publisher have the same meaning as in
section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996.
Trial by jury
Slander
14 Special damage
(1) The Slander of Women Act 1891 is repealed.
(2) The publication of a statement that conveys the imputation that a person has a
contagious or infectious disease does not give rise to a cause of action for
slander unless the publication causes the person special damage.
General provisions
Printed in the UK by The Stationery OYce Limited under the authority and superintendence of Carol Tullo, Controller
of Her Majestys Stationery OYce and Queens Printer of Acts of Parliament