## Facts

- A national newspaper published two articles criticizing the management of a county council’s superannuation fund and alleging impropriety in certain investments and dealings involving the council’s leadership and a businessman.
- The council claimed the publications harmed its credit and reputation in relation to its governmental and administrative functions and brought a libel action against the publisher, editor, and journalists.
- Individuals named in the articles also sued separately; at least one individual claim settled.
- The trial court treated as a preliminary issue whether a local authority could sue in libel for statements reflecting on its governmental and administrative functions and ruled for the council.
- The appellate court reversed, holding that a local authority has no common-law right to sue for libel in respect of statements about its governmental and administrative functions.
- The council appealed to the House of Lords.

## Issues

1. Whether a democratically elected local authority may maintain a common-law libel action for statements reflecting on the authority in the exercise of its governmental and administrative functions.
2. Whether permitting such libel actions by governmental bodies is contrary to the public interest in free expression and open criticism of government.

## Decision

- The House of Lords dismissed the appeal.
- A local authority, as an organ of government, cannot maintain an action in libel at common law for statements concerning its governmental or administrative functions.
- Allowing such claims would deter robust public criticism of government because even the threat of litigation can chill speech.
- The court distinguished local authorities from trading or other non-governmental corporations that may sue where defamation causes concrete harm to business or the capacity to carry on activities.
- Prior lower-court authority suggesting local authorities could sue was not followed.

## Legal Principles

- Organs of government, including democratically elected local authorities, have no common-law cause of action in libel for criticism of their governmental or administrative conduct.
- The public interest in uninhibited criticism of government outweighs any interest a governmental body claims in vindicating “reputation” through defamation suits.
- Defamation law remains available to individuals (e.g., councillors or officials) whose personal reputations are harmed, even when criticism is directed at governmental affairs.
- Governmental bodies have political and public channels to answer criticism; libel litigation by public authorities risks suppressing debate and scrutiny.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that local authorities, as governmental bodies, cannot sue for libel at common law in relation to their public functions because such actions would improperly restrain free public criticism and democratic accountability.


Derbyshire Cnty. Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1993] A.C. 534 (H.L.)