Libel and slander in UK law are the two forms of defamation: libel covers false statements made in a permanent form, such as writing, print, or online posts, and slander covers spoken words and other fleeting communications. Both sit under the Defamation Act 2013, which requires anyone bringing a claim to show the statement caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation.1Legislation.gov.uk. Defamation Act 2013 That threshold filters out minor grievances and keeps the law focused on genuinely damaging falsehoods.
What Separates Libel From Slander
The difference is the medium. Libel is defamation recorded in a lasting form: a newspaper article, a blog post, a social media comment, a video, an email. Slander is the spoken word, a gesture, or anything else that passes and leaves no record.
Television and radio broadcasts count as libel even though they go out live, because the Broadcasting Act 1990 treats words published in the course of a programme service as permanent form.2Legislation.gov.uk. Broadcasting Act 1990 – Section 166 The same logic captures almost everything online, which is why libel is now the dominant form in practice.
The practical consequence of the distinction is proof. A slander claimant ordinarily has to prove “special damage,” meaning actual financial loss that flowed from the words. A libel claimant does not. Slander becomes actionable without proof of financial loss in two situations: where the words accuse you of a crime punishable by imprisonment, or where they attack your fitness for your job, profession, or trade.
The Serious Harm Threshold
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 is the first filter every claim must pass. A statement is not defamatory unless publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to your reputation. Before 2013, the common law presumed certain kinds of statements were harmful because of what they said. That presumption no longer exists.
In Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2019), the Supreme Court confirmed that serious harm has to be proved as a fact, not inferred from the words alone.3UK Supreme Court. Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another You need evidence of actual impact: witnesses whose view of you changed, business lost, measurable reputational fallout. A statement can be insulting and unfair, but if it did not seriously damage how others see you, the claim fails here.
Businesses face a steeper version of the test. A body that trades for profit must show the statement caused or is likely to cause serious financial loss, not just abstract reputational harm. That means quantifiable figures: a downturn in revenue, lost contracts, or a drop in share price traceable to the publication.
What a Claimant Has to Prove
Clearing serious harm is only the start. Several other elements have to be established.
The statement must have been “published.” In defamation law that simply means communicated to at least one person other than you. A private remark made only to your face is not publication. An email copied to a colleague is. A social media post visible to followers is. If nobody else saw or heard the statement, there is no claim, because reputation is damaged in other people’s eyes.
The statement must identify you. Your full name is not required. If a reasonable reader or listener would understand the words to be about you, identification is satisfied. Courts assess meaning through the eyes of an ordinary, reasonable reader who is neither suspicious nor naively literal. In Stocker v Stocker (2019), the Supreme Court said this hypothetical reader has to reflect the medium: someone scrolling Facebook reads quickly and impressionistically, and a post should be judged in that casual context.4Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Stocker v Stocker Press Summary
Finally, the statement must be defamatory in substance. It needs to lower you in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. Rude, unflattering, or annoying is not enough on its own.
Defences the Defendant Can Run
The Defamation Act 2013 codified the main defences. Even where a statement is false and harmful, the defendant avoids liability if one of these applies, and this is where many claims are actually decided because the burden sits with the defendant to make the defence out.
Truth
Under section 2, it is a complete defence to show the imputation conveyed is substantially true.5Legislation.gov.uk. Defamation Act 2013 – Section 2 “Substantially” matters. A statement does not have to be true in every detail. If the core allegation is true and the remaining inaccuracies do not seriously harm your reputation beyond what the truth already justifies, the defence succeeds. This replaced the old common law defence of justification.
Honest Opinion
Section 3 protects opinion rather than fact. The defendant has to show three things: the statement was recognisable as opinion, it indicated the basis for that opinion at least in general terms, and an honest person could have held the same view on the facts that existed at the time.6Legislation.gov.uk. Defamation Act 2013 – Section 3 A review calling a restaurant’s food “terrible” is opinion. A claim that the kitchen uses expired ingredients is a factual allegation and cannot shelter here. The defence fails if the claimant shows the defendant did not actually hold the opinion.
Public Interest
Section 4 covers statements on a matter of public interest where the defendant reasonably believed publication served the public interest. The court looks at all the circumstances and makes allowance for editorial judgement. Where the statement was a fair and impartial account of an ongoing dispute involving the claimant, the court disregards any failure to verify the truth of the allegation.7Legislation.gov.uk. Defamation Act 2013 – Section 4 The defence applies whether the statement is fact or opinion, and it matters particularly for journalism and whistleblowing.
Privilege
Some statements are protected regardless of their truth. Absolute privilege covers statements made in Parliamentary proceedings, rooted in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, and fair and accurate reports of court proceedings. Section 7 of the 2013 Act extended absolute privilege for court reporting to proceedings in any court worldwide, not only UK courts. Qualified privilege, which can be defeated by proof of malice, covers a wider set of situations including fair and accurate reports of public meetings, government proceedings, and certain company documents.
Website Operators
Section 5 gives a defence to platforms where someone else posted the content. The operator can escape liability by showing it was not the operator who posted the statement. The defence is defeated if the claimant cannot identify who posted it, gave the operator a proper notice of complaint, and the operator failed to respond.1Legislation.gov.uk. Defamation Act 2013 The procedural steps sit in the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013. In practice, forums and social platforms have a compliance route provided they act on complaints.
Defamation Online
Most modern claims involve something published on the internet, and online statements are almost always libel because of their permanence and reach. Tweets, blog comments, Google reviews, and Facebook posts all count as publication in permanent form.
Section 10 of the Defamation Act 2013 limits when you can sue someone who is not the original author, editor, or publisher. A court cannot hear such a claim unless satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to bring the action against the person who actually wrote or published the statement.8Legislation.gov.uk. Defamation Act 2013 – Section 10 You generally cannot go after a platform as a first option when the person who posted the statement can be identified and sued directly.
The Defamation Act 1996 also provides an “innocent dissemination” defence for secondary publishers, including internet service providers and others who distribute or transmit content, where they did not know and had no reason to believe their involvement contributed to a defamatory publication.9Legislation.gov.uk. Defamation Act 1996 They also have to show they took reasonable care. Taken together, these provisions push the primary target of any online claim back onto the person who wrote the words.
Bringing a Claim
The Pre-Action Protocol
Before issuing proceedings you must follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims. This means sending a Letter of Claim to the proposed defendant setting out the nature of the complaint, the specific words objected to, why they are false, and the remedies sought.10Justice UK. Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims Include your evidence of harm: records of financial decline, statements from people who saw the publication and changed their view of you.
The defendant should respond as soon as reasonably possible. If they cannot reply within 14 days, they must say when they will. The pre-action stage exists to encourage settlement, and many disputes end here with a retraction, apology, or agreed correction. Skipping or mishandling this step can count against you later.
Where the Case Is Heard
If pre-action correspondence fails, a Claim Form (N1) is issued in the High Court. Defamation sits within the Media and Communications List, where specialist judges manage the claims. Since 2013 there is a strong presumption of trial by judge alone. The Supreme Court in Stocker v Stocker described the effect of section 11 as the “almost complete abolition” of jury trials in defamation.
The Limitation Period
You have one year from publication to bring a claim.11Legislation.gov.uk. Limitation Act 1980 – Section 4A That is short compared with the six-year window for most civil claims. The clock starts on the date the material is first made available to the public, and the court has discretion to extend only in exceptional circumstances.
Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 added the single publication rule for online material. Before 2013, every fresh view of an article technically counted as a new publication, restarting the clock. Now the limitation period runs from first publication by that publisher, and a later publication of substantially the same material by the same publisher does not reset it. The exception is where the later publication is “materially different,” for example moving an article from an obscure page to the homepage and sharply increasing its prominence.12Legislation.gov.uk. Defamation Act 2013 – Explanatory Notes – Section 8
What You Can Win
A successful claim can produce several forms of relief. The most common is compensatory damages, scaled to the severity of the harm and the extent of publication. Where the defendant acted with particular spite or persistence, aggravated damages may be added. Injunctions can prohibit repetition of the statement.
Two remedies specific to the 2013 Act are worth knowing. Under section 12, the court can order the defendant to publish a summary of the judgment, giving the claimant a public vindication. Under section 13, the court can order a website operator to remove the defamatory statement, or order anyone who was not the original author to stop distributing material containing it.13Legislation.gov.uk. Defamation Act 2013 – Section 13 The removal power matters particularly for online cases, where the words continue to cause harm for as long as they stay up.
What It Costs
Defamation litigation is expensive. England and Wales run on a loser-pays basis, so the unsuccessful party usually bears both sides’ legal costs. That creates serious financial risk, especially for an individual suing a well-resourced publisher. Even straightforward claims can run into tens of thousands of pounds, and contested High Court trials can cost far more.
Conditional fee agreements, often called no-win-no-fee, are still available for defamation claims, though they lost ground after the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Since April 2019, success fees under these agreements are no longer recoverable from the losing side, which means the claimant’s own damages may be reduced to cover the solicitor’s uplift. After-the-event (ATE) insurance, which covers your liability for the other side’s costs if you lose, remains recoverable in defamation claims and is often essential to manage the downside. Funding is usually the first practical hurdle, and solicitors experienced in media law will typically assess the strength of a claim before agreeing to act on a conditional basis.