How to Sue for Defamation in the UK: Process, Costs and SLAPPs

Suing for defamation in England and Wales is possible, but it is slow, expensive, and governed by a strict one-year deadline that catches out more claimants than any other rule in the process. This guide explains how a claim actually moves through the courts, what it costs, and the new but narrow rules aimed at "SLAPP" lawsuits. It is general information, not a substitute for advice from a solicitor about a specific case.

Before You Can Sue: The One-Year Deadline

The single most important rule in defamation litigation is also the easiest to miss. Under the Limitation Act 1980, s.4A, a claim for libel, slander, or malicious falsehood must generally be brought within one year of the date of publication. That is far shorter than the six-year limit that applies to most other civil claims, and it is not widely known outside specialist circles.

The court does have a discretion, under s.32A, to disapply that one-year bar and allow a claim to proceed late. In deciding whether to do so, the court weighs factors including the length of and reasons for the delay, and how the delay has affected the reliability of the evidence. This discretion is not exercised routinely; a claimant who waits should expect a real fight over whether the case can proceed at all, separate from the merits of the claim itself.

In Scotland, the equivalent limitation period is also one year, set by s.32 of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021, which amended the earlier prescription and limitation legislation there.

Because the clock starts running immediately and rarely gets extended, anyone who thinks they may have been defamed needs to get advice and decide whether to act quickly, not treat a year as a comfortable planning horizon.

Step One: The Pre-Action Protocol

Before a claim is even issued, the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims, in force since 1 October 2019, sets out what is expected of both sides. It applies to defamation claims along with related media claims such as misuse of private information and harassment connected to publication.

The protocol expects a prospective claimant's letter of claim to set out, in reasonable detail:

• the publication complained of, and the date it appeared;
• the words or statement said to be defamatory;
• the meaning the claimant says the words bear (the imputation complained of);
• which parts of the statement are said to be factually inaccurate, and why;
• how the claimant says the statement has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation;
• the remedy being sought, such as a retraction, an apology, damages, or an injunction; and
• the basis for suing in England and Wales, together with how the claim is being funded.

The defendant is expected to respond as soon as reasonably possible. The protocol does not fix a single mandatory number of days, but because the underlying one-year limitation period is so short, 14 days is generally treated as the working standard for a response where nothing else has been agreed between the parties. Skipping the protocol, or responding to it unreasonably, can have cost consequences later even if the claim eventually settles or is decided on its merits.

Step Two: Where the Claim Is Heard

Defamation claims in England and Wales that proceed to court are handled in the High Court's King's Bench Division, in a specialist list called the Media and Communications List. The procedure is governed by CPR Part 53 and its accompanying Practice Direction 53B, both of which are specific to defamation and related media claims rather than the general civil procedure rules that apply to most litigation.

This specialisation matters. Judges in the list deal with defamation cases regularly, and the procedure is built around a few features that are distinctive to this area of law, described below.

Step Three: The Meaning Trial

One of the most consequential early stages in a modern defamation claim is the determination of meaning. Under Practice Direction 53B, paragraph 6.1, the court can decide, as a preliminary issue, three connected questions:

1. what meaning the words complained of bear;
2. whether that meaning is defamatory of the claimant at common law; and
3. whether the statement is one of fact or one of opinion.

Deciding these questions early, before the case gets into detailed evidence about truth or public interest, is now the standard approach in most contested cases. The reason is practical: the answer to what a statement actually means, and whether it is fact or opinion, often decides whether the rest of the claim can succeed at all, or narrows it dramatically. An application for a meaning trial must be made promptly, under paragraph 6.2 of the practice direction; leaving it late can itself count against the party seeking it.

Separately, paragraph 4.2(3) of the practice direction requires the claimant's Particulars of Claim, the formal document setting out the case, to plead the specific facts relied on to satisfy the serious harm requirement in the Defamation Act 2013. A claim that simply asserts serious harm without pleading facts to support it risks being struck out or challenged at an early stage.

What a Successful Claimant Can Get

If a claim succeeds, the remedies available include:

• damages, to compensate for the harm to reputation;
• an injunction, to stop further publication of the statement;
• a court-ordered summary of the judgment, under s.12 of the Defamation Act 2013, requiring the publication of a summary of the court's findings; and
• a removal or stop-distribution order, under s.13 of the Defamation Act 2013, directing a website operator to remove the statement, or a distributor to stop distributing material containing it.

None of these are guaranteed outcomes, and a court has discretion over which remedies to grant even where liability is established.

Costs: A Rule That Is Easy to Get Wrong

Defamation litigation is expensive, and the costs rules that apply to it have a genuine quirk that is frequently misdescribed. Under the general costs-shifting principle in the Civil Procedure Rules, the losing side in litigation typically has to contribute to the winning side's legal costs, though the court retains broad discretion over the amount and who pays.

Two specific funding-related rules matter for defamation and privacy claims in particular:

• Success fees are not recoverable from the losing side. Section 44 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), which ended the recoverability of conditional fee agreement success fees from the losing party across most civil litigation, was extended to publication and privacy proceedings, including defamation, from 6 April 2019. Since then, a claimant's own lawyer's success fee is a cost the claimant bears themselves, win or lose, rather than something recovered from the defendant.
• After-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums remain recoverable. Section 46 of LASPO, which similarly ended recoverability of ATE premiums in most other civil litigation, was not extended to publication and privacy proceedings. That means a claimant in a defamation case can still, in principle, recover the cost of an ATE insurance premium from a losing defendant, a position that no longer exists in most other areas of civil law.

These two rules point in different directions and are easy to conflate. Success fees: no longer recoverable, since April 2019. ATE premiums: still recoverable, unlike in most civil claims. Anyone assessing the real cost exposure of bringing or defending a defamation claim needs to understand both halves of that position, not just one.

Because of this cost structure, and because litigation can run into the tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds even before trial, most defamation disputes that reach a lawyer are assessed first for whether a pre-action resolution, such as a correction, apology, or retraction, can achieve a workable outcome without full litigation.

SLAPPs: A Narrow, Recent Protection, Not a General One

Public debate about "SLAPPs", strategic lawsuits against public participation, has grown in the UK in recent years, particularly around claims used to intimidate journalists and campaigners investigating matters like financial wrongdoing. Parliament has now legislated on this, but only within a specific boundary.

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, in provisions that came fully into force on 18 June 2025, introduced two connected measures:

• Section 194 requires procedural rules allowing a court to dismiss a claim early where it meets the SLAPP definition and the claimant has not shown it is more likely than not to succeed at trial, along with costs protection for the defendant in that situation.
• Section 195 defines what counts as a SLAPP claim for this purpose. Broadly, the claimant's conduct must be intended to restrain the defendant's exercise of the right to freedom of speech; the information involved must concern economic crime; publishing or disclosing that information must serve the public interest in combating economic crime; and the claimant's behaviour must have caused, or be intended to cause, harassment, expense, or harm to the defendant going beyond that which is ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation.

This is a genuinely useful protection, but its scope is limited to economic-crime-related speech. It does not create a general defence or fast dismissal route for someone sued over an ordinary defamatory statement unconnected to alleged financial wrongdoing.

There is currently no general anti-SLAPP Act in the UK. A Private Member's Bill aimed at a broader anti-SLAPP law was introduced in the 2023-24 parliamentary session and did not pass before that session ended. Two further Private Members' Bills addressing the same gap were introduced in June 2026, one in the House of Lords and one in the House of Commons. As of this guide, neither has passed into law. Anyone told that a general anti-SLAPP protection already exists in the UK, outside the narrow economic-crime rules above, is being given inaccurate information.

Getting Advice

Defamation law sits at the intersection of a short limitation period, a specialist court list, and an unusual costs structure, and mistakes made early, particularly around the one-year deadline and the pre-action protocol, are difficult to undo later. Because of the cost exposure and procedural complexity involved, anyone considering bringing or responding to a defamation claim should get advice from a solicitor who specialises in media and communications law before taking any step. This page cannot tell a specific reader whether they have a claim, and nothing in it should be read as advice on an individual case.

For the underlying substantive law in each UK nation, see our guides to defamation law explained and the Defamation Act 2013 defences, and for claims involving material published online, see online defamation.

This guide describes the general process for defamation litigation in England and Wales. It is not legal advice, does not tell any individual reader whether they have a valid claim, and cannot be relied on as a substitute for advice from a solicitor about a specific situation. Defamation litigation carries significant cost risk and should not be started without specialist advice.