Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27

KEY POINTS

• The law makes a clear distinction between two types of defamation, namely:

  1. Actionable per se, which includes all libels and two specific types of slander (formerly four), and

  2. Defamation actionable only with proof of special damage, which encompasses all other slander.

• For the latter category, pecuniary loss must be proven.

• A statement that was previously considered defamatory based on its inherent tendency is not legally actionable unless it has caused or is likely to cause "serious" harm.

• The phrase "has caused" pertains to the historical consequences of the publication, which must be determined based on the actual impact of the statement. This involves a factual assessment that considers both the inherent tendency of the words and their actual impact on the recipients.

FACTS

• The claimant, Bruno Lachaux, initiated divorce proceedings in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) courts and sought custody of his son, Louis, after his marriage with Afsana broke down.

• Afsana went into hiding with Louis, leading to a custody battle in which the UAE court awarded custody to Mr. Lachaux.

• Subsequently, British newspapers published articles alleging Mr. Lachaux's abusive behaviour towards Afsana and manipulative actions during the custody proceedings.

• Mr. Lachaux filed libel actions against the newspapers, and the courts assessed whether the publications met the "serious harm" test under the 2013 Act. 

COMMENTARY

• This case clarifies the burden of proof for claimants, emphasising that they must show evidence of serious harm to their reputation caused by defamatory statements.

• The ruling acknowledges that serious harm can be inferred from the inherent tendency of the words used in the publications to cause damage to the claimant's reputation.