header-logo header-logo

02 September 2011
Issue: 7479 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Defamation not star attraction

Celebrities turn their backs on defamation in favour of superinjunctions

Privacy injunctions have taken over from defamation actions as the legal route of choice for celebrities seeking to prevent potentially damaging stories from being published.

Only nine celebrities—including Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lily Allen and Boy George—sued for defamation in 2010/11, a fall of 59% from 22 in 2009/10, according to research by Sweet & Maxwell.

By contrast, the past year has seen the courts grappling with a slew of controversial “superinjunctions”.

Korieh Duodu, media law solicitor at Addleshaw Goddard, said: “The increased use of anonymity orders in privacy claims has enabled well known individuals to prevent anything being published at all.

“This will in some cases prevent the need for the individual to sue for libel after the event.”

However, businesses are increasingly suing for defamation to protect their reputation against complaints from individuals and customers.

There were five defamation cases brought by businesses in 2009/10, but this number trebled to 16 this year.

Defamation claims arising from social media communications such as Facebook and Twitter are also on the rise, and court cases where the defamatory comments were made online more than doubled last year to 16 from seven.

Duodu said journalists often source news from social media platforms, increasing the risk that content that is defamatory or in breach of privacy rights can spiral into a national news story.

“People who find themselves damaged on social media sites can often find it time-consuming and difficult to have the offending material removed, because many platform providers do not accept responsibility for their users content,” he said.

“Such is the speed at which information travels through social networks that one unchecked comment can spread into the mainstream media within minutes, which can cause irreparable damage to the subject who has been wronged.”

He called for “greater accountability of the providers of user generated content”, adding: “This ought to have been a focus of the proposed Defamation Bill currently being debated.”

Issue: 7479 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll