Question 9
How many defamation cases have you been involved in each of the last three years in which the multiple publication rule has been an issue? What was the outcome ?
Question 10
What costs have you incurred over this period in monitoring archives specifically in relation to defamatory material?
Question 11
Do you agree with the benefits identified for [...]
Tags: Assessment, Civil procedure, Costs, Defamation, English law, European Court of Human Rights, Evaluation, Impact Test, internet service industries, Publishing, Social Issues, United Kingdom
Scope of the Impact Assessment
1.1 This Impact Assessment (IA) considers the social costs and benefits of implementing the options discussed in the main consultation document with respect to the multiple publication rule and the limitation period for defamation claims. The assessment is undertaken in line with the criteria set out in the Impact Assessment Guidance.
1.2 [...]
Tags: civil law, Costs, Defamation, Externality, High Court, internet service providers, internet usage, Internet users, Law Commission, online archive, online archive publications, online archive publishers, online archives, online material, online media publication industry, online publications, online publishers, Publishing, Royal Court, Tort, Tort law, web publishers, Wider Society
We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper.
1. Taking into account the arguments set out above, do you consider in principle that the multiple publication rule should be retained? If not, should a single publication rule be introduced? Please give reasons for your answers.
2. If the multiple publication rule were to [...]
Tags: Crimes, Defamation, online archives, online publications, Tort law, United States
Date of publication or date of knowledge
36. There are a number of key issues which are relevant when considering the merits of these options. The first of these is whether the limitation period should run from the date of publication of the allegedly defamatory material or the date the claimant becomes aware (or could reasonably [...]
Tags: British Broadcasting Corporation, Civil procedure, Crimes, Defamation, present law, Scotland, Statute of limitations, Tort law, United Kingdom, Wales, West Midlands Police
Introduction
30. Consideration of the merits of altering the multiple publication rule should take into account the other rules governing the limitation period for defamation actions. Under section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 (as amended by the Defamation Act 1996), the current limitation period for bringing an action for defamation or malicious falsehood is one [...]
Tags: Civil procedure, Crimes, Defamation, Governor, Law Commission, Limitation Act, media publications, Statute of limitations, Statutory law, Supreme Court Procedure Committee, Tort law, United Kingdom, Wales
25. It has been suggested that rather than introduce a single publication rule, another possible approach would be to amend the Defamation Act 1996 to prevent actions in relation to publications on online archives outside the one year limitation period for the initial publication, unless the publisher refuses or neglects to update the electronic version, [...]
Tags: Court of Appeal, Crimes, Defamation, European Court of Human Rights, online archive, online archives, Tort law, United Kingdom
18. A possible alternative to the multiple publication rule would be to adopt a single publication rule. This would mean that instead of the limitation period running from the time of each publication of the defamatory material, it would run from the date of the first publication, even if copies of the material continued to be [...]
Tags: BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation, Crimes, Defamation, ISP, monthly magazine, online archives, online material, Online service provider law, Press Complaints Commission, producer, the Press Complaints Commission, Tort, Tort law, United Kingdom, United States, United States defamation law, Viking Penguin Inc, Wales
11. In its scoping study, the Law Commission concluded that “the present [limitation] period of one year may cause hardship to claimants, who have little time to prepare a case. However, it is potentially unfair to defendants to allow actions to be brought against newspapers after their original publication, simply because copies have been placed [...]
Tags: Court of Appeal, Crimes, Damages, Defamation, e - commerce, English tort law, Law Commission, Law_Crime, Tort law
5. The multiple publication rule stems from the 19th century case of Duke of Brunswick v Harmer,1 in which the Duke’s agent bought a back issue of a newspaper published 17 years earlier. The court held that this constituted a separate publication that was actionable in its own right. Under the Limitation Act 1980, [...]
Tags: Brunswick, Brunswick Corporation, businessman, Court of Appeal, Crimes, Damages, Defamation, English defamation law, European Court of Human Rights, High Court, Law_Crime, online archive, online edition, Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd, The Times, The Times Global Broadcasting Co Ltd, Times Newspapers Ltd ., Tort law, United States
Introduction
1. It is a longstanding principle of the civil law that each publication of defamatory material gives rise to a separate cause of action which is subject to its own limitation period (the “multiple publication rule”). The Law Commission considered the multiple publication rule in its 2002 scoping study “Defamation and the Internet”1 , [...]
Tags: civil law, Computer law, Crimes, Defamation, Law Commission, law relating, online and offline material, online archive, online archives, online diary, online material, Online service provider law, Technology_Internet, Tort law
Table of Contents
Comments
Commenters