Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 created the defence of "publication on a matter of public interest". This replaced the common law Reynolds defence, abolished by subsection 4(6). [7] However the ten criteria set out in Reynolds are still considered relevant in some circumstances when considering whether a publication was in the public interest.
The Act changed a number of defamation procedures. All defamation cases under the Senior Courts Act 1981 in the Queens Bench Division, and the County Courts Act 1984, which were "tried with a jury" unless the trial requires prolonged examination of documents, are now "tried without a jury", unless the court orders otherwise.
The Defamation Act 2013 reformed English defamation law on issues of the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation, and abolished the Reynolds Defence, Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd, also replacing the common law defences of justification and fair comment.
An "identifiable group" is defined for both offences as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or mental or physical disability". [10]
The current Act is the Defamation Act 1992 which came into force on 1 February 1993 and repealed the Defamation Act 1954. [81] New Zealand law allows for the following remedies in an action for defamation: compensatory damages; an injunction to stop further publication; a correction or a retraction; and in certain cases, punitive damages.
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.
Paragraph 11A was inserted by section 7(5) of the Defamation Act 2013. New paragraphs 13(2) to (4) were substituted for paragraphs 13(2) to (5) by section 7(7)(b) of the Defamation Act 2013. Paragraph 14A was inserted by section 7(9) of the Defamation Act 2013. Paragraph 15 was substituted by section 7(10) of the Defamation Act 2013.
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. [1 ...