Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Section 8 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (defamation actions) is amended. The Slander of Women Act 1891 is repealed. 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.
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.
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 ...
The current Act is the Defamation Act 1992 which came into force on 1 February 1993 and repealed the Defamation Act 1954.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.
Tort law, Defamation, Defamation Act 2013: The court ruled that section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 imposed a new threshold over the common law interpretation of defamation, being that the harm caused had to be serious. It was found that the damage to reputation of the individual in this case did not cause serious harm.
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.
Defamation law has a long history stretching back to classical antiquity. While defamation has been recognized as an actionable wrong in various forms across historical legal syst
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.