Libel CASES
In English law, libel is defamation published in a permanent form (for example, writing, images, online posts, or broadcast). It is distinguished from slander (transient speech). A claimant must show that the publication causes or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation; for bodies trading for profit, this means serious financial loss.
definition and principles
Libel concerns statements presented as fact (or fact-laden opinion) that identify the claimant and are defamatory. The serious harm threshold filters trivial claims. Liability can arise for primary publication and for republication that is the intended or natural consequence. The single publication rule applies to limitation.
common examples
- Newspaper articles, blogs, and social media posts naming or clearly identifying the claimant.
- Broadcast segments or podcasts (treated as libel owing to permanence/repetition).
- Online reviews or company reports alleging criminality, dishonesty, or professional incompetence.
- Headlines, captions, or images conveying a defamatory imputation even if the text hedges.
legal implications
- Defences include truth, honest opinion, and publication on a matter of public interest (Defamation Act 2013).
- Absolute and qualified privilege protect defined occasions (for example, court or Parliament; specified reports).
- Offer of amends is available under the Defamation Act 1996; apologies and corrections may mitigate damages.
- Limitation is generally one year from first publication (subject to the single publication rule and extensions).
- Jurisdictional gatekeeping applies where publication is largely abroad; the court asks if England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate forum.
practical importance
Early analysis should cover identification, meaning (natural and innuendo), serious harm, available defences, and takedown or correction strategy under the pre-action protocol.
See also: Defamation; Slander; Serious harm; Truth; Honest opinion; Public interest defence; Absolute privilege; Qualified privilege; Offer of amends; Limitation.
Home » Libel
A libel claim against Google for comments on its Blogger platform was struck out. The court held that after notification, Google's liability as a publisher was for a very brief period, and the publication was too trivial to constitute a real and substantial tort. Facts The claimant, Mr Payam Tamiz, brought a libel claim against Google Inc. concerning allegedly defamatory comments posted by anonymous users on a blog titled ‘London’s Dirty Little Secret’. The blog was hosted on Google’s ‘Blogger’ platform. The eight comments in question were posted between April and August 2011. Mr Tamiz’s solicitors sent a letter of
A wife posted on Facebook that her ex-husband 'tried to strangle me'. The Supreme Court overturned a libel finding against her, establishing that the meaning of words on social media should be determined by how an ordinary reader would understand them contextually. Facts Mrs Nicola Stocker made a post on the Facebook wall of her ex-husband’s new partner, Ms Bligh. The post included the comment, “he tried to strangle me”. This was part of an exchange of comments with Ms Bligh. Mr Ronald Stocker subsequently brought an action for libel against Mrs Stocker, claiming the words meant he had attempted
A French national sued UK newspapers for defamation. The Supreme Court clarified the 'serious harm' test under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, holding it requires a factual determination based on the statement's actual impact, not just its inherent tendency. Facts The claimant, Mr Bruno Lachaux, a French national residing in the UAE, brought libel actions against the publishers of The Independent, the ‘i’ newspaper, the Evening Standard, and the Huffington Post (AOL UK). The articles, published in early 2014, contained serious allegations relating to his conduct towards his British ex-wife during an acrimonious divorce and custody battle. The
A music services company posted criticisms of a band on their website. The band sued for libel. The Supreme Court clarified the defence of 'honest comment', ruling that the comment need only identify the subject matter, not repeat all underlying facts. Facts The appellants were professional musicians in a group called ‘The Gillettes’. The respondents ran a company, ‘APL’, which provided services to the entertainment industry, including an online directory and booking services. The appellants were listed on APL’s website. A dispute arose over a booking, leading APL to post a notice on its website stating the appellants were in
Derbyshire County Council sued The Times for libel over articles criticising its financial dealings. The House of Lords held that a local authority, as a governmental body, has no right to sue for libel, as this would unacceptably inhibit public criticism. Facts In June and July 1989, The Sunday Times and The Times newspapers published articles questioning the propriety of investments made by the Derbyshire County Council (‘the Council’) for its superannuation fund. The articles suggested financial mismanagement and were critical of the council’s conduct. The Council, a democratically elected local government authority, and its leader initiated an action for
A teacher's application for leave to appeal a libel action dismissal was refused. The court affirmed that a union report on his conduct was protected by qualified privilege and found there was insufficient evidence of express malice by the authors to defeat this defence. Facts The plaintiff, Mr De Freitas, a teacher and member of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), brought a libel action against two union officials, Mr O’Brien and Mr Smith. The defendants had authored a report for the union’s Legal and Benevolent Sub-Committee concerning Mr De Freitas’s conduct, which led to his dismissal
Two actors sued a newspaper over an article with a defamatory headline and photos suggesting they were in a pornographic game. The accompanying text clarified it was a hoax. The court held the article must be read as a whole, and the text (antidote) neutralised the headline's defamatory sting (bane). Facts The respondents, Harold and Louise Charleston, were well-known actors in the Australian television soap opera ‘Neighbours’. The appellants were the publishers of the ‘News of the World’ newspaper. On 15 March 1992, the newspaper published an article featuring the prominent headline ‘STREWTH! WHAT’S HAROLD UP TO WITH MADGE?’. Below
Science writer Simon Singh criticised the British Chiropractic Association in an article for promoting 'bogus' treatments, leading to a libel claim. The Court of Appeal held his words constituted comment, not a verifiable assertion of fact, upholding the fair comment defence. Facts In an April 2008 article in The Guardian newspaper titled ‘Beware the spinal trap’, the defendant, science writer Mr Simon Singh, criticised the claimant, the British Chiropractic Association (BCA), for its claims regarding chiropractic treatments. The specific words complained of were: “The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding
Actor-director Steven Berkoff sued for libel after a journalist called him 'hideously ugly'. The Court of Appeal held that whilst insulting, the words were capable of being defamatory as they could expose him to contempt, scorn or ridicule, thus lowering his standing. Facts The plaintiff, Mr Steven Berkoff, a well-known actor, director, and writer, brought a libel action against Ms Julie Burchill, a journalist (the first defendant), and Times Newspapers Limited (the second defendant), the publisher of The Sunday Times. The action arose from a film review written by Ms Burchill published on 28th May 1995. In the article, reviewing
Rebekah Vardy’s libel claim against Coleen Rooney was dismissed after the High Court held Rooney’s allegations substantially true. A 2025 appeal by Vardy concerning alleged misconduct over legal costs was also dismissed. Facts Rebekah Vardy sued Coleen Rooney for libel over a viral social media post Rooney made on 9 October 2019. Both women are high-profile figures – “well-known media and television personalities” married to former England footballers. In Rooney’s post (dubbed the “Reveal Post”), she dramatically accused Vardy’s Instagram account of leaking her private Instagram stories to The Sun newspaper. Rooney explained that after months of suspicion, she set
