UK Defamation Laws: Libel, Slander & the 2013 Act

In England and Wales, defamation law is governed mainly by the Defamation Act 2013, which says a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation (section 1). Claims usually must be brought within one year (Limitation Act 1980, section 4A).

This page is part of our world defamation laws hub, which compares libel and slander rules across jurisdictions.

Which law applies, and where

Defamation in England and Wales is governed chiefly by the Defamation Act 2013, supplemented by surviving common law and earlier statutes such as the Defamation Act 1996. The 2013 Act extends to England and Wales only (section 17(2)), so it does not run in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Scotland reformed its own law through the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021, which came into force on 8 August 2022. Northern Ireland did not adopt the 2013 Act and continues to apply its pre-2013 common law and the Defamation Act 1996. If your dispute is centred on Scotland or Northern Ireland, the threshold tests and defences differ from those described here. The Act came into force on 1 January 2014, so older publications may be judged under the previous rules.

What counts as defamation

A defamatory statement is one that tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, and under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 it is not actionable unless publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation. In Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27 (12 June 2019), the Supreme Court held that serious harm is a question of fact about the statement's actual impact, not a presumption that flows automatically from the words. For a body that trades for profit, section 1(2) raises the bar further: harm is not serious unless it has caused or is likely to cause serious financial loss. A claimant generally must show the statement referred to them, carried a defamatory meaning, was published to a third party, and crossed the serious harm threshold.

Libel versus slander

English law splits defamation into two forms. Libel covers statements in a permanent or recorded form, including newspapers, books, broadcasts, websites and social media posts. Slander covers transient statements, typically spoken words or gestures. The practical difference has traditionally been proof of damage. Libel is actionable without proving special (financial) damage, while slander historically required the claimant to prove actual financial loss, with narrow exceptions. Section 14 of the Defamation Act 2013 abolished two old slander categories (imputations of unchastity and of certain diseases). Across both forms, the section 1 serious harm requirement now applies, so a trivial statement will not found a claim regardless of how it was communicated.

Watch out: Online posts, comments and reviews are treated as libel because they are stored in a permanent form, so the lower slander threshold does not help a poster who claims they were "just commenting."

The main defences

The Defamation Act 2013 codified the principal defences and abolished their common law predecessors. Section 2 provides a defence of truth where the defendant shows the imputation is substantially true; it replaced the common law defence of justification. Section 3 provides honest opinion: the statement must be one of opinion, it must indicate the basis of the opinion, and an honest person must have been able to hold it on the available facts; it replaced fair comment. Section 4 protects publication on a matter of public interest where the defendant reasonably believed publishing was in the public interest, and it abolished the older Reynolds defence. Section 6 protects peer-reviewed statements in scientific or academic journals. Absolute privilege (for example, statements in court or Parliament) and qualified privilege (for certain reports and duty-bound communications) also remain, with section 7 extending privilege to a range of reports.

Watch out: Honest opinion under section 3 fails if the claimant proves the defendant did not actually hold the opinion, so labelling a clear allegation of fact as "my opinion" does not by itself attract the defence.

Online defamation and website operators

Social media, review platforms and forums are common venues for defamation claims, and because online content is permanent it is treated as libel. Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 gives a specific defence to operators of websites in respect of statements posted by users, broadly where the operator did not post the statement and complied with a notice-and-action process set out in regulations. The defence can be defeated if the operator acts with malice or fails to respond properly to a valid complaint. Section 10 limits actions against people who were not the author, editor or commercial publisher of the statement, which often points a claimant back to the original poster. Section 13 lets a court order a website operator to remove a defamatory statement or order distributors to stop circulating material once liability is established.

Time limits and the single publication rule

Defamation claims are subject to a short limitation period. Under section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980, no action for libel or slander (or malicious falsehood) may be brought after one year from the date the cause of action accrued, although courts have a discretion under section 32A to disapply that limit where it is equitable. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 introduced a single publication rule: where the same or substantially the same material is published again by the same publisher, the one-year clock generally runs from the first publication, not each later view or repost. This stops an indefinite series of claims over archived online articles. The rule does not apply if the manner of the later publication is materially different, for example a much more prominent re-promotion of the material.

How a claim works and what remedies are available

A person who believes they have been defamed usually starts by sending a letter of claim setting out the words complained of, their defamatory meaning and the harm caused, consistent with the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims. Most claims proceed in the King's Bench Division of the High Court, often in the specialist Media and Communications List. Section 11 of the Defamation Act 2013 removed the presumption of jury trial, so defamation claims are now tried by a judge alone unless the court orders otherwise, and judge-only trials have become the norm. Remedies can include damages to compensate for reputational harm and distress, an injunction to prevent repetition, an order under section 12 requiring publication of a summary of the judgment, and the section 13 removal orders noted above. Legal advice is important because limitation is short and meaning and serious harm are often decided early.