Our clients instruct us when they cannot afford to let damaging allegations stand. Our specialist defamation solicitors have helped thousands of public figures, HNWIs, professionals and corporates protect their hard-earned reputations. Our highly-regarded media law department is unique because all our solicitors work exclusively in this field. This means that our clients receive the best possible advice and representation.
The importance of reputation
In today’s interconnected world, reputations can be damaged or destroyed by a few mouse-clicks. Defamatory publications can not only be costly, in terms of loss of revenue or opportunity, but can also impact on individuals personally: damaging relationships or preventing them from developing in the first place. They are also often the source of considerable distress and embarrassment. It is often necessary to act quickly before a damaging publication spreads.
What is a defamatory statement?
It is the publication of a statement to at least one other person that will tend to cause the hypothetical average reader to think less of you. The fact that a statement is untrue, upsetting and/or insulting does not necessarily mean it is defamatory. Additionally, the publication must have caused, or be likely to cause, "serious harm" to your reputation. In a defamation claim the burden is on the claimant to prove a statement has been read and serious harm suffered.
What does 'serious harm' mean?
This is constantly being debated by lawyers and judges. The threshold is relatively high. Serious harm will depend on all the circumstances of the publication. If a defamatory statement is not read by many individuals or unlikely to be taken seriously then the test may not be met.
What is the difference between libel and slander?
Libel is defamation in a permanent form (e.g. written), slander is temporary (e.g. spoken). With some exceptions, it is normally necessary to prove actual loss to bring a slander claim, whereas in libel claims you will normally automatically be entitled to compensation (provided that the 'serious harm' test is met).
Can you defame someone accidentally?
Yes. A defendant's intention is generally irrelevant. The real issue is what the average reader would have understood the words to mean and whether they would cause reputational harm. You can accidentally defame someone by being careless in what you say. You may also be liable for simply repeating someone else's defamatory statement if your republication causes the claimant harm.
Can a company bring a claim for defamation?
Yes, but a party that is trading for profit must additionally prove that the statement has caused, or is likely to cause, it serious financial loss.
What defences can be raised?
A number of defences may apply in defamation proceedings. These include: 'truth', ‘honest opinion’, ‘publication on a matter of public interest’, ‘absolute privilege’, and ‘qualified privilege’. We will advise you on the applicability of any defences in consultation.
What is the 'presumption of falsity'?
In English defamation law, it is presumed that a defamatory statement is false. This means there is an evidential burden on a defendant to prove it is "substantially true".
What is 'privilege'?
Certain statements, for example all statements/allegations made in parliament, in court or to the police, are said to have been made on an occasion of 'absolute privilege'. Any defamation claim will fail, even if the statements/allegations were false and malicious (see our article here). There will be other scenarios where statements are said to have been made on an occasion of 'qualified privilege'. For example, a report by an employee to a line manager. Here 'qualified privilege' provides a defence to a defamation claim unless the complaint can show the defendant acted maliciously (see our article here).
What is 'publication on a matter of public interest'?
This is a statutory form of qualified privilege that provides protection for publications on matters of public interest (e.g. responsible journalism). The statement (or part of it) must relate to a matter of public interest and the defendant must reasonably believe that publication is in the public interest.
What is 'honest opinion'?
This defence protects reviewers, critics and commentators (whether professional or amateurs) expressing honestly held opinions. It is a complicated defence. In order for the defence to succeed the defendant will need to show that the statement is an honest expression of an opinion held and one that could be held based on a fact or a privileged statement. The defence does not apply to assertions of fact dressed up as opinions. Statements made by a defendant who does not genuinely hold the opinion are not covered by this defence, but it can often be very difficult to establish this on evidence.
What is the time limit for bringing a defamation claim?
One year from the date of the publication. This time limit will only be disapplied in exceptional circumstances. The Court expects defamation claims to be brought quickly if genuine reputational harm has been suffered.
What remedies are available if I succeed?
The most common 'relief' the Court can order is:-
- Damages (compensation for injury to reputation, to vindicate the defamation, and for distress/injury to feelings)
- An injunction prohibiting the republication of similar statements
- Legal costs
However, most cases settle and solicitors are free to negotiate terms of settlement. These commonly include:-
- Damages (compensation)
- An undertaking (legal promise) not to republish similar statements
- An apology/retraction. This may be private, public or a statement in the High Court
Can I sue a search engine or an online platform?
Only in certain circumstances. We will be able to advise you on the viability of such a claim. We acted for the claimant/appellant in Tamiz v Google Inc  EWCA Civ 68, which was the first time the Court of Appeal considered the liability of internet service providers for libel. The Court held that Google Inc could be liable as publisher at common law in relation to its Blogger platform. Our summary of the judgment can be found here. Since the judgment, the inception of sections 5 and 10 of the Defamation Act 2013 means that in certain cases genuine intermediaries can never be liable in defamation.
Additionally, following the decision of the European Court of Justice in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja Gonzalez (Case C-131/12) it may be possible to sue search engines under the UK General Data Protection Regulation ('UK GDPR') or the Data Protection Act 2018 (see our 'Right to be Forgotten' page here).
Finally, we regularly make defamation complaints to intermediaries, on behalf of clients, who will often consider removing or delisting content/links on a voluntary basis.
What if I do not know who the author of a defamatory statement is?
If someone else does (e.g. a telephone/internet company/online platform) we may be able to apply to the Court on your behalf to obtain a disclosure order. See our page here.
What is the first step in bringing a defamation claim?
Instructing us to prepare a Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Claim. To do this we will need to review the material complained of, other relevant documentation and to take your detailed instructions. We will then prepare and send a formal Letter of Claim to the defendant setting out your case and your requirements.
What if a Letter of Claim does not resolve the matter immediately?
Where liability is not accepted or a case is not settled, ultimately a claim should be issued in the Media and Communications List in the King's Bench Division of the High Court. This may prompt settlement discussions. If the claim does not settle the matter will be set down for a trial normally 12-18 months after the issue of the claim.
Do you act for defendants?
Yes. We have an excellent track record of defending defamation claims.
Why should I instruct Brett Wilson LLP?
In short, to ensure that you have the best team fighting for you and to maximise your prospects of success. Defamation law is notoriously complex and thus it is advisable to instruct specialist defamation solicitors. Our work and client care is of the highest standard. All cases are run by a specialist defamation solicitor. Every matter has partner involvement.
We have long-standing working relationships with the best media law KCs and junior barristers, whom we can draft into the team to represent you in court if the need arises. We regularly act against the mainstream press, media, search engines and social media platforms. Based on this experience, we tend to have a good insight into how a particular defendant will assess your claim. If there is a good settlement to be negotiated, we are confident we are well placed to achieve it. If there is a case to be litigated, we are confident we can help you seek the best result.
As well as being listed in the prestigious Legal 500, Chambers and Partners and The Times Best Law Firms directories as a leading firm in the fields of defamation, privacy and reputation management law, partners Iain Wilson, Max Campbell and Tom Double are all individually recognised as leading individuals. Iain Wilson and Max Campbell are additionally recommended by the Spear's 500 HNWI directory for their reputation management work. Iain Wilson is also recommended in the Tatler Address Book. Most importantly, the firm receives excellent feedback from its clients and contemporaries.
Litigation can be stressful, time consuming and costly. Therefore at the outset of your case we will conduct a cost benefit analysis with you. We will talk you through this process. We offer honest and pragmatic advice to our clients. We will always consider alternative options, including asserting other causes of action (such as harassment and the misuse of private information), approaching intermediaries or PR work.
How do I instruct Brett Wilson LLP?
The first step is to attend a preliminary consultation. At the consultation we will advise you on the merits of any claim, talk through the relevant practical and legal issues, and set out your options. We will review relevant documentation ahead of the consultation. The consultation will help you understand your position and allow you to make an informed decision about what action to take.
Consultations take place in our London offices or by Zoom/Teams/telephone. We can also travel to you.
To request a consultation please send us an email, complete our online enquiry form or call us on 020 7183 8950. If emailing or using the online form, please provide a short outline of your situation.
Details of the cost of a consultation will be provided following your enquiry.
We regret that we are unable to review your case, consider papers or provide advice prior to a consultation or without being formally instructed.
We do not offer alternative funding arrangements.
Contact us to request a consultation
Call 020 7183 8950
or send us a message.
Notable reported cases
- Smith v Backhouse  EWCA Civ 874
- Wai v Kywe (2023)
- Evans v McMahon (2023)
- Embery v Grady (2023) (SIOC)
- Global Processing Services (UK) Ltd v Yanpolsky & Anor  EWHC 425 (KB)
- Smith v Backhouse  EWHC 3011 (KB)
- Smith v Backhouse (2022) (SIOC)
- Dew v Mills-Nanyn  EWHC 1925 (QB)
- Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor  EWHC 1688 (QB)
- GUH v KYT  EWHC 1854 (QB)
- Hopkinson v British Mensa Limited (2021) (SIOC)
- Blackledge v Persons Unknown  EWHC 1994
- Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor  EWHC 143 (QB)
- Wright v Ver  EWCA Civ 672
- JQL v NTP  EWHC 1349 (QB)
- Riley & Anor v Heybroek  EWHC 1259 (QB)
- Al Sadik v Sadik  EWHC 2717 (QB)
- Morgan v Times Newspapers Ltd and Telegraph Media Group Ltd (2019) (SIOC)
- Morgan v Times Newspapers Ltd  EWHC 1525 (QB)
- Life 2009 Ltd v Lambeth London Borough Council (2019) (SIOC)
- Suttle v Walker  EWHC 396 (QB)
- Zarb-Cousin v Association of British Bookmakers & Anor  EWHC 2240 (QB)
- SWS v Department for Work and Pensions  EWHC 2282 (QB)
- Galloway v Ali-Khan  EWHC 780 (QB)
- Singh v Weayou  EWHC 2102 (QB)
- Guise v Shah  EWHC 1689 (QB)
- Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknown  EWHC 2628 (QB)
- QRS v Beach & Anor  EWHC 1489 (QB)
- Myers v Ong (2014) (SIOC)
- Myers v Ryce (2014) (SIOC)
- QRS v Beach & Anor  EWHC 3057 (QB)
- Tamiz v Google Inc  EWCA Civ 68
- The Law Society & Ors v Kordowski  EWHC 3185 (QB)
- Kordowski v Hudson  EWHC 2667 (QB)