← Back to blog

Defamation for SQE1

Part of our SQE1 Tort Law guide → View the full SQE1 Tort Law guide

31 Mar 2026

Defamation protects a person's reputation from unjustified attack.

Defamation

Tort Law > Defamation

You encounter a claim based on a published statement and must remember that the Defamation Act 2013 is the controlling law - the old common-law tests (justification, fair comment, Reynolds defence) are now replaced by statutory defences (truth, honest opinion, public interest). The serious harm threshold is now part of the elements themselves, not a damages issue.

What Is Defamation?

Candidates frequently lose marks on SQE1 by forgetting the serious harm threshold under the Defamation Act 2013 — without establishing serious harm to reputation, no claim can succeed. Defamation is the publication of a statement that tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or causes the claimant to be shunned or avoided, or exposes the claimant to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. It is divided into libel (defamation in a permanent form) and slander (defamation in a transient form).

The Defamation Act 2013 significantly reformed the law, introducing a requirement that the statement must cause or be likely to cause 'serious harm' to the claimant's reputation. Understanding negligence duty breach causation and remoteness provides a contrast to defamation law, and examining how public nuisance operates will help you see the differences between tort concepts.

Key Principles for SQE1

  • Elements of defamation: (1) The statement is defamatory; (2) the statement refers to the claimant; (3) the statement has been published to a third party; and (4) the statement causes or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation (s.1, Defamation Act 2013).

  • Libel vs slander: Libel is defamation in a permanent form (writing, print, broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act 1990, and potentially online posts). Slander is defamation in a transient form (spoken words, gestures). Libel is actionable per se (no need to prove special damage); slander generally requires proof of special damage unless it falls within an exception.

  • Slander exceptions (actionable per se): Imputation of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, imputation of a contagious disease, imputation affecting fitness for profession or trade, or imputation of unchastity (now largely obsolete).

  • Serious harm (s.1, Defamation Act 2013): The statement must cause or be likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation. For bodies trading for profit, this means serious financial loss (s.1(2)). This replaced the previous common-law threshold (Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019]).

  • Single publication rule (s.8, Defamation Act 2013): The limitation period runs from the date of first publication, not each subsequent access.

  • Defences - truth (s.2): The defendant must show that the imputation conveyed by the statement is substantially true. Replaced the common-law defence of justification.

  • Defences - honest opinion (s.3): The statement must be an expression of opinion (not fact), based on any fact that existed at the time, and an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of those facts. Replaced fair comment.

  • Defences - publication on a matter of public interest (s.4): The statement was on a matter of public interest, and the defendant reasonably believed that publishing it was in the public interest. Replaced the Reynolds defence.

Exam tip

The Defamation Act 2013 is the controlling law for SQE1—use the statutory defences (truth, honest opinion, public interest) and not the old common-law tests. Serious harm is now an essential element of defamation itself (s.1), not just a damages issue. For slander claims without proof of special damage, check whether the statement falls into one of the four exceptions—if not, the claim fails. Always distinguish facts (truth defence) from opinions (honest opinion defence).

How This Appears in SQE1 Questions

SQE1 questions test the elements of defamation (particularly the serious harm threshold), the distinction between libel and slander, and the statutory defences under the 2013 Act. A common trap is allowing a slander claim without proof of special damage when no exception applies. Watch for scenarios testing the boundary between a statement of fact (truth defence) and an opinion (honest opinion defence). Questions may also ask which specific statutory provision is engaged. This is a classic SQE1 trap.

Quick Example Scenario: A national newspaper publishes an article alleging that a well-known businessman has been convicted of fraud. The allegation is false - the businessman was investigated but never charged. The businessman sues for defamation.

The statement is defamatory (imputation of a criminal offence lowers reputation), it refers to the claimant (named), and it has been published to the public. Serious harm is likely established given the national readership and the nature of the allegation. The truth defence (s.2) fails because the imputation - that he was convicted - is not substantially true. The newspaper would need to rely on another defence, such as publication on a matter of public interest (s.4), but this is unlikely to succeed given the factual inaccuracy.

Common Mistakes Students Make

  • Forgetting the serious harm requirement under s.1 of the Defamation Act 2013 - this is now an essential element.
  • Allowing a slander claim without proof of special damage when no exception applies.
  • Confusing the truth defence (statement of fact - is it substantially true?) with honest opinion (expression of opinion - could an honest person have held it?).
  • Applying the old common-law terminology (justification, fair comment, Reynolds defence) instead of the statutory defences under the 2013 Act.

Quick Summary

  • Defamation requires a defamatory statement referring to the claimant, published to a third party
  • The Defamation Act 2013 requires serious harm to reputation (s.1)
  • Libel is permanent form; slander is transient and usually requires proof of special damage
  • Key defences: truth (s.2), honest opinion (s.3), public interest (s.4), and privilege
  • The single publication rule (s.8) limits the limitation period for online publications

Want to test this now? Try a few SQE1-style questions below before moving on.

Test Yourself

Test yourself

Quick check questions based on this article.

Question 1

Scenario

A local newspaper publishes an article about food hygiene standards in the town. The article names a specific restaurant and states that the restaurant's kitchen was found to have a serious rat infestation during a recent inspection. The statement about the rat infestation is entirely false. The most recent inspection of the restaurant by the local authority found no hygiene issues of any kind. The newspaper's editor did not verify the accuracy of the statement before publication. The article is read by approximately five thousand people in the local area. Following publication, the restaurant experiences a significant decline in customer bookings over a three-month period. The restaurant's owner estimates the lost revenue at eight thousand pounds. The restaurant had been in operation for twelve years and had an excellent reputation in the town. The newspaper had previously published a positive review of the restaurant two years earlier. The restaurant owner also runs a catering company that operates from separate premises. The catering company's bookings are unaffected by the article. The restaurant owner brings a defamation claim against the newspaper.

Is the restaurant owner likely to establish a claim in defamation against the newspaper?

Question 2

Scenario

A local councillor writes a blog post on his personal website criticising a property developer's proposed housing development on a greenfield site. The post states that the developer 'has a history of cutting corners on building safety, having been fined twice by the Health and Safety Executive for breaches at other developments.' The councillor also states that 'the proposed development will inevitably lead to flooding of neighbouring properties because the developer refuses to commission adequate drainage surveys.' The developer was indeed fined once by the Health and Safety Executive three years ago for a minor procedural breach at a different site, but the second alleged fine is entirely fabricated. The developer has commissioned a preliminary drainage assessment, though a full survey has not yet been completed. The councillor wrote the post after attending a heated public consultation meeting where several residents expressed strong opposition to the development. The councillor holds a genuine and passionate belief that the development is harmful to the local community. The developer wishes to bring a claim in defamation against the councillor.

Which of the following most accurately describes the likely outcome of the developer's defamation claim in respect of the allegation about Health and Safety Executive fines?

Question 3

Scenario

A journalist writes an article for a national newspaper investigating alleged financial irregularities at a prominent charity. The article states that the charity's chief executive 'diverted over £500,000 of donated funds into personal accounts and used the money to finance a lavish lifestyle.' Before publication, the journalist contacted the charity's press office requesting a comment, but received no response within the 48-hour deadline she set. The journalist relied on two anonymous sources within the charity and reviewed bank statements provided by one of those sources, though she did not independently verify the bank statements. An independent audit completed two months after publication confirms that no funds were misappropriated. The journalist's editor approved the article after a brief review. The charity recently relocated to new premises in a converted warehouse, which attracted considerable media attention. The chief executive brings a defamation claim. The journalist seeks to rely on the defence of publication on a matter of public interest under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013.

Which of the following is the court most likely to consider when assessing whether the journalist reasonably believed that publishing the statement was in the public interest?

Practice with full exam-style questions

Try DemoView Pricing

Related Topics

Practise Defamation Questions for SQE1

Want to solidify your knowledge? ActusPrep provides realistic SQE1 questions tailored to this topic.

👉 Try our free demo: https://actusprep.com/demo 👉 View plans and pricing: https://actusprep.com/pricing