# UK defamation law online: the test, defenses and clock UK defamation law online explained: the serious harm test, who can be sued, the three main defenses and the one-year clock. Not legal advice. --- UK defamation law online is not one law. In England and Wales, a statement is actionable only if its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation, and the claim must be brought within one year. Scotland has its own 2021 Act with its own serious harm test and a one-year limit, and Northern Ireland has a separate 2022 Act. That short answer hides what decides most cases: whether the statement is fact or opinion, whether the person you want to sue actually published it, and whether the year has already run. A post can be unfair and widely read and still fail on any one of those points. This guide covers the claim itself: the test, the defenses, who counts as a defendant, what the clock does with reposts, and what a court can order. It is information, not legal advice; your own solicitor, in the right part of the UK, decides what applies to you. Every section cited was read on legislation.gov.uk or a government page for this guide, and the text says where a point could not be read.
The short version
Serious harmthe threshold in section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 for England and Wales, and in section 1 of the Scottish Act of 2021
One yearthe time limit for a libel or slander action in England and Wales, and for defamation actions in Scotland
14 daysthe reply time the media claims protocol mentions, or a stated date

Sources: Defamation Act 2013 section 1, Limitation Act 1980 section 4A, Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 sections 1 and 32, and the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims.

## Serious harm is the first test an online statement must pass Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 says that a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. The page marks it as extending to England and Wales and in force from 1 January 2014. Read the [text of section 1](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/1) before you rely on anyone's summary of it, including this one. Section 1(2) adds a second rule for a body that trades for profit: its harm is not serious unless it has caused or is likely to cause serious financial loss. A limited company or agency therefore needs to show money, such as lost orders or cancelled contracts. Whether a sole trader or partnership counts as a body is not answered on the face of the section, so put it to counsel. The word "likely" matters online: you need not wait for the damage, but you must explain why it is likely. The statute does not say what evidence is enough; case law was not read for this guide, so nothing here is built on it. What you can do without reading a case is collect the facts any court will ask about: - Where the statement appeared and how visible it was: a pinned post on a public page and a reply deep in a thread are different publications. - Who saw it: clients, employers, regulators, or strangers. - What has happened since: a lost contract, a withdrawn invitation, a customer who cited the post. - How serious the allegation is: dishonesty in your profession is different from rudeness. The statement must also identify you and have reached at least one other person. The Scottish Act states the second in its section 1(2). ## Who can be sued for what is posted online Defamation is a claim against a publisher. In England and Wales, section 10 of the 2013 Act says a court has no jurisdiction to hear a claim against someone who is not the author, editor or publisher of the statement, unless it is satisfied that suing the author, editor or publisher is not reasonably practicable. Section 10(2) takes the meanings of those three words from section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996. That 1996 section also gives a defense to a person who was not the author, editor or publisher, took reasonable care, and had no reason to believe their conduct contributed to publishing a defamatory statement. Its list of roles that do not make someone an author, editor or publisher includes operating or providing a system or service through which a statement is made available electronically. The 1996 page shows its sections 1 to 4 were repealed for Scotland from 8 August 2022. For a website operator, section 5 of the 2013 Act gives a defense where the operator can show it did not post the statement. The claimant can defeat it only by showing all of three things: the poster cannot be identified, a notice of complaint was given, and the operator did not respond as the regulations require. Section 5(11) also defeats it if the operator acted with malice, and section 5(12) says moderating other people's posts does not by itself defeat it. The operator's notice procedure sits in the Schedule to the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013 and is a separate subject; the point here is only that the defense shapes who is realistic to pursue. Section 9 covers defendants not domiciled in the UK. A court can hear the claim only if England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place of all the places where the statement was published, so a claim against an overseas author is a forum argument before it is anything else. Scotland is stricter on who may be sued. Subject to section 4 of the Scottish Act, which was not read, section 3 allows proceedings only against an author, editor or publisher, or an employee or agent responsible for the content. For online material, a person is not treated as an editor if their only involvement is republishing or linking to a statement without altering it, or marking approval or disapproval, so long as that does not materially increase the harm. Operating equipment or services that carry the statement, and moderating it, are also excluded. ## Truth, honest opinion and public interest decide most online cases Defendants rarely deny publishing. They say the statement was true, or opinion, or published on a matter of public interest. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 2013 Act set those defenses out, all in force from 1 January 2014, and in each the defendant must show that the conditions are met.
DefenseWhat the defendant must showWhat defeats or limits itTypical online fit
Truth, section 2The imputation conveyed is substantially trueWith two or more imputations, untrue ones must not seriously harm reputation given the true onesA review stating a checkable fact
Honest opinion, section 3It was a statement of opinion, it indicated its basis, and an honest person could have held itClaimant shows the defendant did not hold the opinionA harsh verdict on a real experience
Public interest, section 4It was on a matter of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed publishing was in the public interestThe court weighs all the circumstances, with allowance for editorial judgmentA warning about a business or public conduct
### Truth: the imputation, not the words Section 2 asks whether the imputation is substantially true, meaning what a reader takes from the statement, not the literal words. The common law defense of justification is abolished by the section. Where a statement conveys two or more distinct imputations and some are not shown to be substantially true, subsection (3) lets the defense succeed if the untrue ones do not seriously harm the claimant's reputation given the true ones. Pick the imputation that is both false and damaging, and expect to be tested on the rest. ### Honest opinion: three conditions, one way to lose Section 3 requires, first, that the statement was a statement of opinion; second, that it indicated, in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion; and third, that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of a fact that existed when the statement was published or something asserted as fact in an earlier privileged statement. The claimant defeats the defense by showing the defendant did not hold the opinion. Where the defendant republished someone else's statement, subsection (6) changes the test: the claimant must show that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the author did not hold the opinion. The practical line runs between "the work was shoddy" given with reasons and "he took my deposit and vanished" stated as fact. The second is an assertion a reader will take as true. Writing "in my opinion" in front of it changes nothing. ### Public interest: reasonable belief, not correctness Section 4(1) gives a defense where the statement was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest, and the defendant reasonably believed that publishing it was in the public interest. Subsection (2) tells the court to look at all the circumstances. Subsection (3) says that for an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party, the court disregards any failure to verify the imputation. Subsection (4) requires an allowance for editorial judgment, and subsection (5) makes the defense available for fact or opinion. Being wrong is not enough to win. A defendant who got a fact wrong can still succeed if the subject was of public interest and their belief in publishing was reasonable. A private grievance about a neighbor is unlikely to qualify; a warning about a trader's practices might. ## The one-year clock and what restarts it The clock is short. [Section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/section/4A) says that no action for libel, slander, slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood may be brought after the expiration of one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued. The page marks it as extending to England and Wales. The government's media claims protocol says the same in plain words: the limitation period is only 1 year in defamation and malicious falsehood cases. Section 8 of the 2013 Act, the single publication rule, answers a question every online claimant has: does reposting start the year again? It applies where a person publishes a statement to the public or a section of the public, and later publishes the same statement or one substantially the same. For the purposes of section 4A, a claim over the later publication is treated as having accrued on the date of the first publication. The exception is the one to watch. The rule does not apply where the manner of the later publication is materially different, and the court may weigh the prominence given to the statement and the extent of the later publication. A statement moved from an archive page to a homepage invites that argument. Section 8(6) leaves the court's discretion under section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 untouched; that section was not read, so treat the year as fixed. Section 8 speaks of a person publishing again; what happens when a different person shares the statement is a point for counsel. No English section read starts the clock when you found the post. Scotland says so expressly: section 32 of the Scottish Act runs the one-year limit from publication, not from when it came to the pursuer's notice. For England and Wales, assume the publication date and let your solicitor confirm. ## Scotland and Northern Ireland: what the sources confirm and what they do not The sections above extend to England and Wales only. A letter written for one part of the UK is not safe to send in another.
PointEngland and WalesScotlandNorthern Ireland
Main statuteDefamation Act 2013Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021Defamation Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
Serious harmSection 1Section 1, in force 8 August 2022No standalone section in the enacted contents list
DefensesSections 2 to 4Sections 5 to 7: truth, public interest, honest opinionSections 1 to 3: truth, honest opinion, public interest
Single publication ruleSection 8Repeat publication rule in section 32No such section in the enacted contents list
Time limitOne year, Limitation Act 1980 section 4AOne year, section 32Not read for this guide
### Scotland Section 1 of the Scottish Act gives a right to sue only where publication to someone other than the person concerned has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation, and requires serious financial loss for a body whose primary purpose is trading for profit. It came into force on 8 August 2022 under S.S.I. 2022/154. The contents list shows a different shape from the English statute: a bar on public authorities bringing proceedings (section 2), offers to make amends (sections 13 to 17), a rule on defendants not domiciled in the UK (section 19) and no presumption of jury trial (section 20). Section 30 lets a court order a website operator to display a prominent notice that the statement is subject to proceedings, or to remove it. Section 32 sets the one-year limit and the repeat publication rule, both in force from 8 August 2022. The wording of sections 5 to 7 and the interruption rules in sections 33 and 34 were not read for this guide. ### Northern Ireland The Defamation Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 is listed on legislation.gov.uk, and the contents list read is of the enacted text. It covers the three defenses (sections 1 to 3), peer-reviewed statements and privileged reports, defendants not domiciled in the UK (section 6), trial without a jury unless the court orders otherwise (section 7), and summaries of judgments (section 8). It has no standalone serious harm section and no single publication section. Four things could not be confirmed: the wording of the sections, whether the Act is in force, what later amendments changed, and the Northern Ireland time limit. Do not assume the England and Wales position applies there, and ask a local solicitor before any date is set. ## What a win gives you, and what it does not do to search results A defamation claim ends in a judgment against a publisher. In England and Wales, section 13 of the 2013 Act lets a court that gives judgment for the claimant order the operator of a website to remove the defamatory statement, and order anyone who was not an author, editor or publisher to stop distributing material containing it. Scotland's section 30 gives a similar power, with the option of a notice beside the statement. Three limits follow. The order comes after the claim, which takes months or longer. It runs against the website and publisher, not a search engine's index. And it presupposes a defendant you can identify and serve. For search results, that means the page stays listed while the claim is pending, and search engines update their copy on their own schedule once it is removed. Getting a link out of name searches in the meantime is a data protection question with a different test. Damages were not read for this guide, so none are given. Cost is the bigger practical limit: a claim needs a solicitor and evidence, and the protocol says the court will weigh compliance when deciding costs. ## Before you sue: the letter of claim and what the protocol expects Civil claims of this kind are expected to go through the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims before proceedings. [The protocol](https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol/prot_def) covers defamation, malicious falsehood, misuse of private information, data protection and harassment by publication, whether the publication is in print, online or on social media. It says the court will consider how far the protocol was followed when deciding costs and other orders.
The pre-action sequence for an online statement in England and Wales
  1. Preserve the evidenceCapture the page with its address, date, time and account name before anything is edited.
  2. Identify the imputationWrite down the exact meaning you say a reader takes from the statement and why it is inaccurate. The protocol asks for the imputation and any inaccuracies.
  3. Set the dateWork out the first publication date and the end of the one-year period, and note it in your calendar. Decide how many months of margin you need before issuing.
  4. Send the letter of claimName the publication and the statement, state the meaning claimed, explain the inaccuracies and the serious harm, set out the remedies sought and give facts showing England and Wales is the right forum.
  5. Allow the responseThe protocol expects a full response as soon as reasonably possible, and a date if the defendant cannot answer within 14 days or any shorter period in the letter. Litigation should be a last resort.
  6. Consider settlementWithout prejudice talks, mediation and the offer of amends procedure under the Defamation Act 1996 are all recognized. The protocol says refusing to engage with alternative dispute resolution may be seen as unreasonable.
A letter that names a specific false imputation, shows the evidence and asks for a correction or removal can settle a dispute. A letter that threatens a claim over an honest opinion, or a true statement, hands the other side the story and may count against you on costs. If the defendant rejects the claim, the protocol expects reasons, which gives you an early look at their case. ## An invented scenario: a named post, a known author, one year This scenario is invented, with generic parties and assumed facts, to show the order of events. Assume a freelance designer in England finds a public forum post by a former client, under the client's own name, saying the designer took a deposit and never delivered. In fact the work was delivered and approved, and the designer holds the emails. The post is two months old, and a prospective client has mentioned seeing it.
WhenWhat happensWhy it matters
Day 0The post is found. The designer captures it and the thread.Proof of the words and the date. About ten months of the year remain.
Days 1 to 7The designer gathers delivery emails, the approval and the invoice, and notes the prospect's comment.Evidence of falsity and of serious harm.
Day 10A solicitor sends a letter of claim naming the imputation and asking for removal and a correction.Starts the protocol. Reply expected within 14 days or a stated date.
Day 24The former client replies, takes the post down and agrees a short correction.One possible outcome: settlement without a hearing.
Alternative: day 24The former client refuses and says the post is honest opinion.The defense fails on its face: the post asserts a checkable fact.
Month 4 to 6If the dispute continues, the solicitor issues proceedings with months of margin.Leaves room before the one-year point, whatever happens on service or delay.
The assumptions do the work: a named author, a plain assertion of fact, an individual claimant, and written proof of delivery. Change one and the path changes: an anonymous author raises identification, a limited company brings section 1(2) into play, and a mixed post invites the section 2(3) argument. The timings show an order of events, not a promise of speed. ## Where UK defamation claims fail, and the tactics that backfire Most failures are visible before money is spent: an opinion with a stated basis, a statement whose sting is substantially true (this guide does not help anyone remove accurate, lawful information about real conduct), a post few people saw and nobody acted on, a year that has run, or the wrong defendant or place under sections 5, 9 and 10 or Scotland's section 3. ## Your next step: date, imputation, defendant Before you speak to anyone: find the first publication date and mark the end of the year; write the one imputation you say is false and the evidence that shows it; and decide who actually published the statement. Those three answers give a solicitor what they need.
If this is happening to you now

If a false statement about you is online in the UK and the year is running, a private review can sort the legal route from the search and platform routes before any letter is sent. At Reputation Partners we do this with your counsel, not instead of them. Request a private audit.

## Questions people ask ### Is it illegal to post something false about someone in the UK? Defamation is mainly a civil claim: the person harmed can sue, and the statement must meet the serious harm test and survive the defenses. Other laws, such as those on harassment or threats, may apply to different conduct. A false but harmless remark is usually not actionable. ### Can I sue over a post that has been deleted? Possibly, if the year has not run and the post caused or was likely to cause serious harm while it was up. Deletion does not undo the earlier publication, but it changes the evidence, so capture the post and its details first. It may also make a settlement easier, because the main thing you wanted has already happened. ### Does defamation law protect a company as well as a person? Yes, in the sense that a company can sue, but in England and Wales section 1(2) requires a body that trades for profit to show serious financial loss, not just reputational harm. Scotland's section 1(3) has a matching rule for bodies whose primary purpose is trading for profit. Expect to produce figures. ### Does the one-year limit start when I find the post? For Scotland, section 32 says the year runs from the date of publication, not from when it came to your notice. For England and Wales, section 4A runs from when the cause of action accrued, and the single publication rule ties a repeat of the same statement to the first publication date. None of the sections read starts the clock at discovery, so ask your solicitor early. ### Can I sue a search engine or a social network for what someone else posted? Section 10 stops a court hearing a claim against someone who was not the author, editor or publisher unless suing those people is not reasonably practicable, and section 5 gives website operators a defense subject to conditions. Whether a given platform can be sued is a question for counsel. ### Is calling something my opinion enough to be safe? No. Section 3 requires that the statement was opinion, that it indicated its basis, and that an honest person could have held it. A factual claim dressed as opinion is still a factual claim, and a claimant can defeat the defense by showing the defendant did not hold the view. State your reasons and stick to what you experienced.