The Defamation Act 2013 tilted the law away from claimants but many lawyers believe it did not go far enough, reports Sian Harrison. London remains the world’s libel capital
The low down
Since it emerged in the 13th century, the law on defamation has been subject to constant revision. That reflects the tension between society’s conflicting aims on freedom of speech, privacy, right to a reputation and the ‘public good’. Rival camps are unable to agree on how to typify the balance of power libel actions demonstrate. Is an individual claimant the ‘little guy’, up against well-funded, cynical media outfits? Or are all journalists public interest champions at constant risk of litigation designed to break or silence them? There is some agreement on one issue. Costs in libel claims are deeply unsatisfactory. The ‘loser pays’ principle does not reliably play out. A threat of action alone can be expensive to see off. And claims with merit may be abandoned because costs are mounting. Small wonder reform is in the air.