Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the context of journalism, publication of a story that the journalist reasonably believes to be true "having regard for all the circumstances", even if subsequently found to be untrue, is protected against action for defamation in UK law. [1] In the United Kingdom, the Defamation Act 2013 provides a public interest defence.
However, it did not quite codify defamation law into a single statute. [4] [5] The Defamation Act 2013 applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014; [6] old libel law therefore still applied to many 2014–15 defamation cases where the events complained of took place before commencement.
The subsequent case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe [1] affirmed the defence, which was subsequently raised successfully in several defamation proceedings. [2] [3] [4] The defence was abolished by s4(6) Defamation Act 2013, being replaced with the statutory defence of publication on a matter of public interest. [5]
The defence used in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd was abolished by the Defamation Act 2013, Section 4 subsection 6. This does not have an effect on the common law defence based on a reciprocity of duty or interest as between the maker of the statement and the recipient. [43] See section 15 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Defamation Act 1996.
British Chiropractic Association (BCA) v Singh was an influential libel action in England and Wales, widely credited as a catalytic event in the libel reform campaign which saw all parties at the 2010 general election making manifesto commitments to libel reform, and passage of the Defamation Act 2013 by the British Parliament in April 2013.
In Canada, for something to constitute fair comment, the comment must be on a matter of public interest (excluding gossip), based on known and provable facts, must be an opinion that any person is capable of holding based on those facts, and with no actual malice underlying it.
HuffPost Data Visualization, analysis, interactive maps and real-time graphics. Browse, copy and fork our open-source software.; Remix thousands of aggregated polling results.
The Defamation Act 2013 introduced a number of important defences. "Arkell v. Pressdram" denotes a robust response to a claim of defamation – specifically, "fuck off". Private Eye had covered the case of a Mr J. Arkell, whom the Eye accused of receiving kickbacks from a debt collection agency in his role as retail credit manager at Granada Group.