Page 64 - Law and the Media

Defamation
The claimant must demonstrate that he has a substantial complaint against the defendant for
defamation in England. This is done by reference to the extent of the claimant’s connections
with England, his reputation to be protected within England, and the scale of publication by
the defendant in England.

There is no presumption that local sales will automatically make the UK courts the most
convenient forum where there is publication in England of an allegedly defamatory statement
about a person with some connection with England and a reputation in England (Berezovsky
v Forbes (1999); Parvinder Chadha & Osicom Technologies Inc v Dow Jones & Company
Inc (1999)).

1.4.2 Limitation period

Under Section 5 of the Defamation Act 1996, claims arising after September 1996 must be
brought within the limitation period of one year. Claims that arose before September 1996
could be brought for a period of three years following the circumstances that gave rise to the
claim.

There is no ‘single publication’ rule under English law. Each and every publication gives
rise to a separate cause of action, and it can be difficult to establish when the limitation
period has expired. The matter is further complicated by judicial discretion, which allows
claims to be brought after expiry of the limitation period. When considering an application
by the claimant to extend the expiry of the limitation period, the court will balance the
reasons for the claimant’s delay and any prejudice to the defendant. In particular, the court
will consider the date on which facts enabling the claimant to make a claim were known
to claimant, and how promptly he acted. Limitation periods are more easily set aside in
defamation cases than other cases, and the judge has a wide discretion (Oyston v Blaker
(1996)).

1.4.3 The action

The combined effect of the wholesale reform of civil procedure in England, introduced by
the Civil Procedure Rules in April 1999, and the Defamation Act 1996, the final provisions
of which were brought into force in February 2000, has been to ‘streamline’ defamation
proceedings. The aim is to reduce cost, complexity and delay. In practical terms, this means
a move towards a ‘cards on the table’ approach to litigation.

The court has been vocal in its promotion of these reforms. Extensive pleadings in
defamation proceedings are now said to be ‘otiose’ (McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd
(1999)). Instead, the pleadings should be limited so as to restrict the parties to the essential
issues (Tancic v Times Newspapers Ltd (2000)).
27