header-logo header-logo

07 January 2014
Issue: 7589 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Defamation to speed up

Master of the Rolls expects speedier resolution of defamation disputes

Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, has said he expects to see earlier resolution of defamation disputes now the new Act is in force.

In a statement issued this week to “provide some clarification and reassurance” to those who might think fewer rule changes have been made than expected, Lord Dyson highlighted existing rules by which the aims of the Defamation Act 2013 can be achieved. 

Noting concerns expressed in Parliament during the passage of the Bill that steps be taken to reduce costs and encourage early resolution of disputes, he highlighted the “formidable array of powers” that already exist by which judges can achieve early resolution. These include CPR 3, under which judges can intervene in cases to call in parties at an early stage, and can “dismiss or give judgment on a claim after a decision on a preliminary issue”.

CPR 3.4 enables judges to strike out claim as an abuse of process or where there are no reasonable grounds for the claim being brought, while the rules also provide for courts to take compliance with pre-action protocols into account, and the use of alternative dispute resolution is encouraged, he said. 

The Act, which came into effect on 1 January, introduces a “serious harm” threshold to discourage trivial claims, new protection for scientists and academics publishing in journals, and new protection where a person reasonably believes publication is in the public interest. It introduces a single publication rule to prevent repeated claims, and a fast-track process for disputes involving online statements.

 

Issue: 7589 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll