## Facts

- Bruno Lachaux brought defamation claims against several newspapers that published articles alleging misconduct in his personal life.
- The claims were made under the Defamation Act 2013, specifically focusing on Section 1, which introduced a "serious harm" threshold for defamation claims.
- The publications appeared in national newspapers with significant readership.
- The defendants contested the claims, arguing the statements did not meet the requirement of causing or likely causing "serious harm" to Lachaux’s reputation.
- Evidence was presented, including details on the extent of the publications, the audience, and the consequences experienced by Lachaux, such as strained relationships and professional difficulties.
- The Supreme Court was required to interpret the meaning of "serious harm" in this context and to determine if sufficient evidence supported Lachaux’s claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 requires objective evidence of "serious harm" to a claimant’s reputation for a successful defamation claim.
2. How courts should assess whether a statement has caused or is likely to cause "serious harm".
3. Whether the evidence presented by Lachaux was sufficient to meet the "serious harm" threshold established by the statute.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that the "serious harm" requirement under Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 necessitates objective evidence of actual or likely reputational damage to the claimant.
- The Court clarified that serious harm cannot be inferred solely from the defamatory nature of a statement; concrete evidence of actual or probable consequences is required.
- In assessing "serious harm," courts must consider factors such as the extent of publication, the nature of the audience, the natural tendency of the statement, and any actual consequences.
- The evidence provided by Lachaux, including the wide publication and subsequent negative personal and professional effects, was held sufficient to satisfy the serious harm requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 creates a statutory threshold requiring proof of "serious harm" to the claimant’s reputation; for businesses, this must be "serious financial loss."
- The burden is on the claimant to demonstrate with evidence that the publication has caused or is likely to cause serious reputational harm.
- Presumptions from common law that harm arose upon publication do not satisfy the statutory threshold post-2013.
- Assessment of serious harm is objective, involving the circumstances of publication, its nature, audience reach, and actual or likely effects.
- This approach is intended to filter out trivial or speculative claims and balance the protection of reputation with freedom of expression.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd established that claimants in defamation actions must provide objective, evidence-based proof of serious harm to reputation under Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, moving away from common law presumptions and raising the threshold for defamation claims in the UK.


Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27 [2020] AC 612