The Defamation Act 1996 was created with the purpose of protecting individuals or organisations from slander and libel. Defamation occurs when untrue, damaging information about someone is published to a third party. If the Act is violated, the courts may decide that the guilty party has to compensate the person who was defamed.
The Act applies to adults in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. This includes yourself and your employees, both as a company or as individuals, depending who was involved in the publishing and the form it took. Employees are equally responsible as employers for any decision to publish defamatory statements (Defamation Act 1996, s1 (4)).
Defences to charges of defamation include proving that the statement did not originate from the defendant, that they took reasonable care in relation to the publication, and that they were not aware that they were contributing to or causing defamation of the claimant
(Defamation Act 1996, s1 (1)). You cannot be charged with defamation for broadcasting or making copies of material containing a defamatory statement published by somebody else (Defamation Act 1996, s1 (3)). Be aware that private internet communication (e.g. IM, emails, social networking sites) can also be mediums for defamatory statements and even choosing to forward emails containing defamatory statements can be an act of defamation.
In Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] it was shown that the mass media can apply the defence of “qualified privilege” to defamation cases, if criteria of “responsible journalism” are met. In Loutchansky v Times Newspapers [2001] it was decided that the media could not use this defence, been responsible as outlined by Lord Nicholls.
A person who has been defamed cannot press charges if over one year has passed since the defamatory statement was published. However, Loutchansky v Times Newspapers [2001] showed that in cases of online defamation, liability is effectively perpetual as every time the defamatory item is viewed online, it is seen by the law as a republication.
Defendants can offer to make an out-of-court settlement to compensate for any unpleasantness or damage caused by the defamation (Defamation Act 1996, s2). Winslet v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2009] shows that if the offer of amends is not seen by the defendant to be adequate, even after acceptance of compensation, the case may still be heard and the defendant may be awarded further compensation by the court.
It is important to encourage employees to read the Defamation Act 1996 and ensure that the Act is easily accessible for revision in the workplace. Perhaps arrange a workshop by a legal professional for your employees to attend, where basic legal points can be outlined and any questions can be answered. Also, ensure that all documents or items are checked by someone other than the author before publication, preferably by multiple people so that inappropriate material can be removed or edited.
The general rule that you and your employees should aim to abide by is that if you wish to publish offensive or otherwise negative statements about an individual, ensure that all statements are true. This may require thorough research and you might even wish to include references to reliable sources in the publication to show you have been responsible.
Bibliography
Legislation
Defamation Act 1996
Cases
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers [2001] EWCA Civ
Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127
Winslet v Associated Newspapers Ltd – [2009] EWHC 2735 (QB)
Background Reading
EDWARDS, Lilian and WAELDE, Charlotte (eds). Law and the Internet, Third Edition. Portland, Oregon, USA, Hart Publishing.
LLOYD, Ian J (2008) Information Technology Law, 5th Edition. Oxford, OUP.
Updated 15 March 2026
Update note: This article contains significant inaccuracies and omissions that readers should be aware of.
The Defamation Act 2013: The article focuses exclusively on the Defamation Act 1996, but the Defamation Act 2013 made major reforms to defamation law in England and Wales and is now the primary legislation in this area. The 2013 Act introduced a serious harm threshold (s.1), requiring claimants to show that a statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation (or serious financial loss for bodies trading for profit). It also replaced the Reynolds qualified privilege defence with a new statutory defence of publication on a matter of public interest (s.4), effectively codifying and modifying the Reynolds principles. New statutory defences of truth (s.2) and honest opinion (s.3) were also introduced, replacing the common law defences of justification and fair comment. The 2013 Act further introduced a single publication rule (s.8), which significantly changes the position on limitation periods for online publications and substantially supersedes the perpetual liability principle described in Loutchansky. Under s.8, the one-year limitation period runs from the date of first publication, not each subsequent viewing, subject to the court’s discretion where materially different publication occurs.
Reynolds v Times Newspapers: The Reynolds qualified privilege defence, as described in the article, has been replaced by the statutory public interest defence under s.4 of the Defamation Act 2013. Reynolds retains historical relevance but is no longer the operative authority.
Jurisdiction: The article states the 1996 Act applies across the United Kingdom, but readers should note that defamation law in Scotland differs and the Defamation Act 2013 applies to England and Wales only (and Northern Ireland by later extension). Scotland has its own developing law in this area.
Winslet v Associated Newspapers: The offer of amends provisions under ss.2–4 of the Defamation Act 1996 remain in force, but readers should consult the current legislative text and up-to-date commentary.
Overall, while the article provides a basic historical introduction to the 1996 Act, it does not reflect the current law. The Defamation Act 2013 is the primary legislative framework governing defamation in England and Wales, and students and practitioners should refer to that Act and subsequent case law rather than relying on this article as a statement of current law.
