What Remedies Are Available In Defamation Cases?

Remedies in defamation cases generally include:

Remedies in defamation cases

Damages

Damages are awarded in defamation cases to compensate a claimant for the damage to their reputation and to compensate them for any distress that the defamatory publication caused. In some cases, you may be awarded aggravated damages. This is usually where the defendant has during the course of proceedings conducted themselves in a way that has increased the claimant’s distress.

An undertaking not to republish any defamatory statements

This is a legal promise given by the defendant not to publish any further (similar) defamatory statements about the claimant.

An Injunction

There are two types of injunctions: an interim injunction; and a final injunction. An interim injunction is applied for at the start of proceedings and stays in place until the conclusion of the claim at trial or a further order of the Court. A final injunction is a remedy given by the Court following the conclusion of the claim at trial.

Although a claimant can apply for an interim injunction in a defamation claim, these are very rarely granted. A claimant might be able to obtain an interim injunction to prevent publication pending trial if the threatened publication would be a misuse of the claimant’s private information.

An apology

The difficulty with an apology is that often a defendant will not want to offer a formal apology through fear that it will be treated as an admission of liability.

John Howell MP read out a proposal for a new bill in December 2020 to the House of Commons. The bill was titled “the Apologies Bill”. The purpose of the bill is to change the law so that an apology can be made without the person being subject to any legal liability as a result.

Not everyone is in favour of the Apologies Bill. An academic has pointed out that a clause within the Compensation Act 2006 already confirms that an apology should not amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty. He is therefore of the view that the Bill is a waste of Parliament’s time.

Despite Mr Howell reading out the proposal for his new Bill in December 2020, nothing further has happened. Parliament’s website indicates that the page dedicated to the Bill was last updated on 4 May 2021 at 12:13. It states that the second reading of the Bill is still in progress. It will be interesting to see whether there is a change in the law as a result of the Bill and what practical implications this will have.

A retraction

A retraction by the defendant of the defamatory statement. An order requiring the defendant to publish a summary of the judgment. Under Section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013), the Court has the power to order the defendant to publish a summary of the judgment. Section 12 of the DA 2013, states:

An order requiring an operator of a website to remove the defamatory statement

Under Section 13 of the DA 2013, the Court has the power to order the operator of a website to remove the defamatory statement or make an order to prevent the further distribution of the statement.

Section 13 of the DA 2013, states:

This is a more unusual remedy and tends to be used in cases where a defendant fails to engage with proceedings, or where it is not possible to identify the defendant.