What Qualifies As Defamation of Character?

The tort of defamation provides redress for unjustified attacks to reputation. It is available to both individuals and corporations, although different criteria apply.

Defamation can take two forms, namely libel and slander.  The classic definition in the UK comes from a 1930’s case when Lord Atkin proposed that the test should be whether the words “tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.”

An example of a successful defamation of character lawsuit brought by Taylor Hampton is that of Dr Jose Antonio Garcia against the Daily Mail in respect of an article headlined “A whole year of hell, thanks to a foreign doctor”, which falsely accused the Claimant of misdiagnosing a patient as being alcohol dependent causing him to lose his driving licence so denying him his livelihood for a year.

The Daily Mail unsuccessfully attempted to justify its attack on Spanish born Dr Serrano for being a “foreign doctor” by falsely claiming his command of English played a part in his wrongly referring the patient to the DVLA and the patient losing his driving licence.  As specialist Defamation of character solicitors, we were able to successfully sue the Daily Mail and the judge awarded our client the sum of £45,000 in damages. 

Libel or slander

Slander involves the spoken word, and libel involves the written word. The main difference between the two claims is that in a slander action, the claimant must prove economic loss, or intention to cause economic loss, such as income or damage to business in order to succeed. 

Burden of proof

In a defamation action in the UK, the burden is on the defendant to prove that the statement is true, this is the reversal of the usual position in a civil case where the Claimant is the party required to prove his case.

Defamation Act 2013

A case in which Defamation of Character Attorney, Daniel Taylor of Taylor Hampton acted,Thornton v Daily Telegraph,was instrumental in the passing of the Defamation Act 2013.

The Claimant was the well-known author and academic Sarah Thornton, who sued for libel and malicious falsehood in respect of a book review in the Daily Telegraph. An allegation made by the newspaper was that Dr Thornton allowed her subjects “copy approval”, which Dr Thornton claimed meant that she lacked integrity as a writer. The Defence of Fair Comment raised by the newspaper was struck out.

The judge found that the critic, Ms Barber,had lied in the course of giving her oral evidence which amounted to a “reckless” and “malicious” action.  The Judge made it clear that the case was not about a bad review or a critic being able to dislike a book. The case was about facts, not opinions.  In his judgment, the judge laid down a test in all libel actions going forward that before an action could be brought by a Claimant the publication or broadcast had to cause substantial harm to an individual’s reputation.  This principle formed the basis of a new serious harm threshold test now found in s.1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013.

In another case brought by Taylor Hampton solicitors, namely Bruno Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2017], Mr Justice Warbyanalysed the requirement of serious harm in relation to damage to reputation.

The claimant, a French national living in Dubai, brought an action against three different news publishers which falsely alleged that he had abused his ex-wife AfsanaLachauxduring the course of their marriage. They publications alleged inter- alia:

1. That he had snatched his son from his pushchair;
2. That he had exploited Dubai’s legal system to gain custody of his child;
3. That he had divorced AfsanaLachaux and sued for custody without her knowledge.

The judge held that the articles caused harm to Mr Lachaux’s reputation. Damage to reputation could be inferred from the words published, which had a seriously defamatory tendency.  The judge concluded that there were “tens of people and possibly more than 100 who knew of the claimant and read one or more of the articles and identified him, and thought worse of him as a result. 

The court found that the defamatory meanings were serious, and that serious harm can be proved by inference from the words published without the requirement for the Claimant to call evidence.

Please contact us to find out how our specialist solicitors can help you.

Disclaimer: The information in this article is for information purposes only. The article is not advice and should not be treated as such. The legal points made in this article are for general application only and should not be taken as specific advice for individual use.