PogoWasRight.org

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy
Menu

UK: Libel law reform campaigners seek £10,000 damages cap

Posted on November 10, 2009July 3, 2025 by Dissent

English PEN, a charity that promotes the human rights of writers and publishers, and Index on Censorship, a body that promotes freedom of expression, spent a year investigating English libel laws. Their joint report, Free Speech Is Not For Sale, was published today.

They say that England’s libel law “was designed to serve the rich and powerful and does not reflect the interests of a modern democratic society.” They have proposed 10 changes to current laws that they want the Government to introduce in a Libel Bill.

Read more on Out-Law.com.   From the report’s summary:

1. In libel, the defendant is guilty until proven innocent

Recommendation: Require the claimant to demonstrate damage and falsity

2. English libel law is more about making money than saving a reputation

Recommendation: Cap damages at £10,000

3. The definition of ‘publication’ defies common sense

Recommendation: Abolish the Duke of Brunswick rule and introduce a single publication rule

4. London has become an international libel tribunal

Recommendation: No case should be heard in this jurisdiction unless at least 10 per cent of copies of the relevant publication have been circulated here

5. There are few viable alternatives to a full trial

Recommendation: Establish a libel tribunal as a low-cost forum for hearings

6. There is no robust public interest defence in libel law

Recommendation: Strengthen the public interest defense

7. Comment is not free

Recommendation: Expand the definition of fair comment

8. The potential cost of defending a libel action is prohibitive

Recommendation: Cap base costs and make success fees and ‘After the Event’ (ATE) insurance premiums non-recoverable

9. The law does not reflect the arrival of the internet

Recommendation: Exempt interactive online services and interactive chat from liability

10. Not everything deserves a reputation

Recommendation: Exempt large and medium-sized corporate bodies and associations from libel law unless they can prove malicious falsehood

No related posts.

Category: Non-U.S.Online

Post navigation

← Privacy Case Flunks ‘Duck Test,’ Court Says
Obama administration tries to vacate adverse rulings →

Now more than ever

Search

Contact Me

Email: info@pogowasright.org

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Navigating Privacy Gaps and New Legal Requirements for Companies Processing Genetic Data
  • Germany’s top court holds that police can only use spyware to investigate serious crimes
  • Flightradar24 receives reprimand for violating aircraft data privacy rights
  • Nebraska Attorney General Sues GM and OnStar Over Alleged Privacy Violations
  • Federal Court Allows Privacy Related Claims to Proceed in a Proposed Class Action Lawsuit Against Motorola
  • Italian Garante Adopts Statement on Health Data and AI
  • Trump administration is launching a new private health tracking system with Big Tech’s help

RSS Recent Posts on DataBreaches.net

  • Updating: Two Telegram channels and two accounts banned, one bounty offered, and BreachForums goes down
  • North Korean Kimsuky Hackers Suffer Data Breach as Insiders Leak Information Online
  • Hackers post stolen St. Paul data online as efforts to reset city employee passwords surge forward
  • Justice Department Announces Coordinated Disruption Actions Against BlackSuit (Royal) Ransomware Operations
  • NL: Hackers breach cancer screening data of almost 500,000 women
©2025 PogoWasRight.org. All rights reserved.
Menu
  • About
  • Privacy