Is comment free? Print E-mail
Thursday, 26 May 2011 00:00

How can local authorities respond to defamatory comments on the web? Wesley O'Brien looks at the options.

In these times of austerity, many public bodies are making very difficult decisions which impact on staff and service users. The increased level of awareness and scrutiny of these decisions, coupled with the prevalence of social networking sites and online forums, means that local authorities are fighting a daily battle against critical comments posted online, some of which stray into the realms of libel.

Examples of these that we have advised on include:

  • an anonymous blogger making repeated defamatory statements against a councillor and the council;
  • defamatory statements made in the press and on websites by a former councillor; and
  • defamatory statements made online by a serving BNP councillor against individual named officers.

In March 2011, the BBC reported that a Caerphilly councillor had agreed to pay £3,000 compensation together with “substantial” legal costs and to publish an apology, after he posted a libellous comment about a political rival on Twitter.

This article answers the ten most common questions we receive from our local authority clients about this issue.

1. How do I know whether a statement is defamatory?

A statement, whether spoken or written, is defamatory if it is said, or sent, to a third party and if it contains an untrue imputation against the reputation of an individual, company or organisation. Whether a statement is defamatory is a question of fact that the court will determine. The court will apply the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used, or any special meaning known to the third party to whom the words were spoken or sent.

2. Who is responsible for the publication?

The individual posting the comments is primarily liable. However, the operator of the website and the web host may also be liable if they have been made aware of the defamatory material. To find out who is running the website, the operator’s contact details may often be on the website itself. If it is not obvious, the contact details of the domain name owner will be held by the domain name registrar. Various searches can be carried out to establish this.

3. Who is entitled to sue?

A defamation claim can be brought by, amongst others, an individual (and in certain circumstances a group of individuals), limited companies, firms and LLPs. A claim cannot currently be brought by a local authority or by central government or by any other democratically elected governmental body.

4. Can a local authority fund the costs of a claim brought by its employee against a third party?

As the law currently stands, a local authority can fund a claim brought by an individual officer and it can also assist an officer in defending such a claim, where it considers such public expenditure to be justified. The position is, however, different for members where a local authority is only entitled to fund a defence, but not a claim brought by an individual member. The only condition is that the statements made must refer to and be defamatory of the individual concerned.

In all cases you should bear in mind the potential cost, staff time and adverse publicity that a decision to fund a claim or defence could bring.

5. Can I get damages?

Yes, provided you are entitled to make out a claim and you succeed in your claim, the court will award you damages. Damages in a defamation claim are intended to compensate the claimant for the damage caused by the statement to the claimant’s reputation. The current perceived limit for damages in such a claim is £200,000. However damages awards are frequently less than £10,000.

6. Are there any practical steps I can take to limit the damage caused?

It is always worth checking the website’s content policy as it may be possible to request the removal of defamatory material by contacting the web host direct.  Unfortunately, the content policy of a number of popular blog sites such as Twitter and Google’s Blogger and Blogspot do not contain any such provision. Others, including, do. Although they will be responsible for the publication, the law provides web hosts and operators with a defence to a claim provided that they took reasonable care in relation to the publication, and did not know or had no reason to believe that what they did caused or contributed to the publication. In practice, it is very difficult for web hosts to rely on this defence once they have been put on notice that they are hosting or making available the alleged defamatory material.

In all cases, including those where it is not possible to make out a claim, it is worth considering whether to formally engage with the person making the statement in  order to allay their concerns and to provide them with all the relevant facts. This may help prevent further defamatory statements being made. A positive publicity campaign counteracting the adverse comments may also assist.

7. What defences might be raised?

There are three main defences to a defamation claim:

  • Justification is the ultimate defence and requires the maker of the statement to prove that the meaning of the defamatory statement is substantially true. They would therefore have to demonstrate that the “sting” or “gist” of the libel is true.
  • “Honest comment”: this requires proof that the words are: (1) comment and not a statement of fact; (2) based on facts which are true or privileged; and (3) on a matter or public interest. Whether a matter is one of public interest depends on the factual circumstances in each case; however, it has been held that the private character and conduct of a person who fills a public office or takes part in public affairs may be the subject for honest comment in so far as it has reference to or tends to throw light on his or her fitness to occupy the office or perform the duties, but not otherwise. The administration of a local authority is also a matter of public interest. This defence is defeated by malice, which is established if the claimant shows that the defendant acted from an improper motive (e.g. spite, or revenge or personal gain). Proof that the defendant was aware that the statement in question was untrue, or was reckless as to its truth, is conclusive evidence of malice.
  • Qualified privilege: this defence is available in a range of situations and arises where the person who makes the statement has an interest or a legal, social or moral duty to make it to the person to whom it is made. As with the defence of honest comment, qualified privilege is defeated if the maker of the statement was motivated by malice. Where the statements have been posted online (e.g. in a blog or on Twitter, both of which are potentially viewable by anyone) it would be difficult for the maker to demonstrate that the statements were made only to those who had an interest in receiving the statements (i.e. the community served by the local authority).

The Ministry of Justice is currently consulting on proposals to reform the libel laws, including a draft Defamation Bill. If the Bill is enacted in its current form, the common law defences of justification and honest comment would be replaced by equivalent statutory defences, and a new defence of “responsible publication on a matter of public interest” introduced which would provide a defence where the maker can show that the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest, and that he or she acted responsibly in publishing the statement. The Bill would also extend the circumstances in which the defence of qualified privilege applies.

8. How can I find out who posted the statement?

Unless the person posting the comment indicates his or her email address or other contact details on the website, it is often very difficult to determine their identity. It may however be possible to obtain an order from the court requiring the web host to  disclose to you the identity of the individual or their IP address.

9. Can I get the website closed down?

If none of the practical steps set out above succeed, and provided you have put the web host on notice that the site contains defamatory material, you will be entitled to and may succeed in obtaining an injunction against the web host requiring them to remove the material.

10. Am I liable for statements made by people within my organisation?

Yes, an employer is jointly liable for any defamatory statements made by an employee provided the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment and authority. The question the court will determine is whether there is a sufficiently close connection between the employment and the defamatory statement.

Wesley O’Brien is a solicitor at Bevan Brittan. He can be contacted by email at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


Latest Stories

Infrastructure and planning trio return to Bircham Dyson Bell
24/04/14: Three specialist major infrastructure and planning lawyers are to rejoin Bircham Dyson Bell less than a year after leaving for a rival law firm.

Councils to be able to delegate "nearly all" childrens social care functions
23/04/14: The Department for Education has launched a consultation on proposed regulations that would enable local authorities to delegate “nearly all” children’s social care functions to third party providers.

Supreme Court to hold expedited hearing on benefit cap next week
23/04/14: The Supreme Court will next week hold an expedited hearing of a challenge to the Government’s introduction of the controversial ‘benefit cap’.

Lewis stresses importance of overview and scrutiny in combined authorities
23/04/14: A government minister has written to the leaders of constituent and non-constituent councils in three recently-created combined authorities to highlight the importance of following good practice on overview and scrutiny.

See all news stories...


Sign up for our FREE email newsletter

Get your full year's CPD for just £349+vat

CLICK HERE for more information

Project thumb iStock 000000224397XSmallThe way to prosperity?
Are Combined Local Authorities and Economic Prosperity Boards (‘EPBs’) the missing link for local authority regeneration initiatives? Rob Hann reports.

Supreme-court-building-med thumbMoJCheshire West: the hidden cost
Sheree Green looks at some of the likely costs to councils arising as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling on deprivations of liberty, and outlines some of the steps they should consider taking.

Challenges in the Consumer Rights Bill
Alan Conroy identifies some of the key issues arising for local authorities and their trading standards teams out of the Consumer Rights Bill.

No minor matter
The breadth of discretion in respect of applications for minor variations under S.41A and B of the Licensing Act 2003 has been considered and confirmed, writes Josef Cannon.

State aid, "preparatory works" and infrastructure projects
Does the European Commission's approval for a German infrastructure scheme involving grants to local authorities mark a shift away from the decision in the Leipzig Halle case? Alex Kynoch reports.

Children and Families Act 2014: implications for local authorities
Olwen Dutton and Clare Taylor outline some of the key provisions for local authorities arising out of the Children and Families Act in relation to vulnerable children.

Setting planning fees
Should local authorities be allowed to set their own planning fees? Polly Reynolds examines recent developments.

Recent changes to the CIL regime: a summary
Jonathan Darby provides a summary of recent changes that affected the Community Infrastructure Levy.

Consultation - backing no horses
David Hart QC looks at the lessons to be learned from a recent Court of Appeal ruling that a council had failed to consult properly on the closure of a day care centre.

The meaning of "public expenditure"
A Court of Appeal ruling on the Education Act 1996 and how the words 'public expenditure' should be interpreted is important for future cases, writes Aimee Fox.

Hobson's choice: public procurement and competition law
A recent High Court case should serve as a reminder of the need to consider whether competition law issues may be relevant when organising a tender process, argues Helen Prandy.

Unknown causes of injuries and Ehlers Danlos Syndrome
A recent case is rapidly becoming the lead authority in Ehlers Danlos Syndrome and “unknown” causes. Tina Cook QC and Katie Phillips analyse the High Court’s ruling and the wider canvas.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill – nearly there!
Alex Loxton highlights some key issues on the pending anti-social behaviour reforms.

Stating your grounds
A recent case has stressed the importance of landlords stating grounds relied on in notices, writes Sharon Garrity.

A new dawn for public sector bonds
In the light of the recent North Tyneside PFI Housing Project, Paul McDermott looks at the scope for the public sector to use bond finance for long term capital projects.

Primary activity, betting shops and s. 153 of the Gambling Act
Gerald Gouriet QC and George Mackenzie take issue with a London borough's interpretation of the outcome of judicial review proceedings relating to primary activity and a betting shop.

Whistleblowing, detrimental treatment and protected disclosures
Colin Godfrey examines a recent EAT case on the right to protection for whistleblowers and detriments suffered as a result of having made a protected disclosure.

Councils and LGO recommendations
A judge recently ruled that a council's decision to pay a developer only 20% of the £250,000 recommended by the Local Government Ombudsman was lawful. Nicholas Dobson analyses the case.

The Planning Court comes into being
Richard Harwood OBE QC analyses the introduction of a Planning Court this week and outlines the key changes.

Transactional decisions - a European perspective
In a significant ruling for trading standards law and practice, the Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified the meaning of a 'transactional decision' by a consumer. Jonathan Spicer examines the judgment.

The Duty of Candour - and general transparency
The Government has published details of the proposed statutory Duty of Candour for health and adult social care providers, plus a new general transparency duty. Corinne Slingo, Tracey Longfield and Belinda Dix examine the key points.

Local authority control of charities - what are the limits?
The ties between a local authority and a charity were the subject of a recent Charity Commission report. Rachel Tonkin looks at the issues raised and the lessons to be learned.

Re B and what followed — the end of the story
Last year the Supreme Court handed down a key ruling on placing a child in an adoptive placement. Hannah Markham reviews recent developments following the case.

Lap dance no more
In two recent decisions the courts have affirmed the wide powers enjoyed by licensing authorities to refuse renewals of licences for lap dancing clubs. Ranjit Bhose QC, Philip Kolvin QC and Josef Cannon review the judgments.

The Better Care Fund – what is in it for housing providers?
What opportunities does the Better Care Fund offer housing providers? David Owens explains.

Retrospective validation, exceptional circumstances and Whitley
The High Court recently upheld approvals for Cardiff’s Energy from Waste scheme. Simon Bird QC analyses the case.

Further chinks in the armour of town and village green status
Polly Reynolds analyses the likely impact of a key Supreme Court ruling on rectification of the register of town and village greens.

Social value and public procurement – a legal guide
Gayle Monk reports on a new guide to the Public Services Social Value Act 2012 and the opportunities the legislation provides to authorities.

Storeyville: houses in multiple occupation
The High Court has confirmed the scope of the licensing regime for houses in multiple occupation. Suzanne Ornsby QC and George Mackenzie explain why.

Procurement breaches and remedies
Richard Binns looks at the lessons to be learned from communications giant BT's challenge to the award by NHS Scotland of a £110m contract to Capita.

Demolition: permitted development rights or planning permission?
A recent case involving one of the Essex districts sparked questions about the primacy of planning permission against permitted development rights in relation to demolition. Jacqueline Millward and Matthew Fox report.

Damages for deprivation of liberty
The Court of Protection team at 39 Essex Street consider what can be learned from two damages settlements for deprivations of liberty.

Avoiding increased risk on dismissal procedures
Julian Hoskins analyses a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on the so-called Johnson exclusion zone and an employer's ability to make amends.

Application forms and lawful uses
The High Court has considered whether a local planning authority had lawfully substituted - under s. 191(4) TCPA 1990 - a lawful use of another description for that claimed in the application form. Peter Wadsley considers the case.

Refusing accommodation because of a misunderstanding
The Court of Appeal has upheld an appeal from an applicant who rejected an offer of accommodation while under a misapprehension that was only revealed after the refusal. Emily Orme analyses the case.

It's a sin to tell a lie
Jon Baines looks at the data protection issues raised by councils' use of voice risk analysis when benefit claimants are on the telephone.

Migrant children: s. 17 support for members of extended family
The High Court has dealt firmly with three arguments quite commonly relied upon in requests by NRPF individuals for support and accommodation under the Children Act 1989. Jonathan Auburn and Ben Tankel review the ruling.

Confiscation and local authorities
Following a recent decision in Norwich Crown Court, Andrew Campbell-Tiech QC and Richard Heller consider the problems faced by local authorities in recovering costs in significant confiscation cases.

Article 8 - a chink in the landlord's armour
Leon Glenister examines an important Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the dismissal of possession proceedings on human rights grounds.

European children, BIIR and reporting restriction orders
William Tyler considers recent guidance from the President of the Family Division and issues surrounding reporting restriction orders, European children, BIIR and the Vienna Convention.

We love local government
Sam McGinty and Gurbinder Sangha of the Junior Professionals Special Activity Area of Lawyers in Local Government, want to hear from junior lawyers, trainees, paralegals and others about their experiences.

Getting capacity right
The Court of Protection team at 39 Essex Street examine a case concerning the crossover between the inherent jurisdiction and the CoP.

Nuisance and planning revisited
Martin Goodall analyses the implications for planning of a very significant Supreme Court ruling on the law of nuisance.

A hard bargain
Huw Rolant Jones and Sally Isaacs report on unions' use of a relatively unknown TULRCA provision in negotiations with employers over changes to terms and conditions.

Public sector pensions, employer contributions and the cost cap
The Treasury has announced higher employer contributions towards public sector pensions from 2015. Neil Bhan considers the move and looks at the details of the employer cost cap.

(Probably) the first group action for damages under the DPA
In December 2013 a group legal action was settled against a council following breaches of the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. Anna Thwaites, who acted for the claimants, explains the legal basis for the claims.

The Inquiries Act 2005 - fit for purpose?
This month saw the publication of a Lords select committee report on the law and practice relating to public inquiries into matters of public concern and, in particular, the Inquiries Act 2005. Emma Ireton looks at the findings and recommendations.

Business Against Crime schemes: second bite
Licensing authorities looking to encourage business crime reduction schemes can take comfort from a High Court ruling, writes Philip Kolvin QC.

What's happening with personal licences?
Paddy Whur reviews recent developments in relation to personal licences and looks for clues to what might happen next.

Neighbourhood forums and exclusion of sites
The Court of Appeal has rejected a legal challenge to a council's decision to exclude key sites from a neighbourhood forum's area. Suzanne Ornsby QC, Morag Ellis QC and Isabella Tafur explain why.

Teckal and in-house arrangements
When is an in-house arrangement a Teckal company? David Hansom looks at an important High Court ruling involving a council and an ALMO.

Active case management post-Jackson – avoiding sanction
Three recent cases have emphasised again the need for active case management. Sarah Appleby outlines the lessons to be learned.

The cap fits?
In the first in a two-part series analysing Court of Appeal judgments on the Government’s welfare reforms, Dean Underwood looks at a ruling that rejected a challenge to the benefit cap.

Religion or belief discrimination: key case law
What amounts to a protected “philosophical belief” under the Equality Act 2010? Graham Richardson assesses a recent Employment Tribunal decision and analyses the case law.

Core stability
The High Court recently upheld a district council’s core strategy. Paul Shadarevian and Emma Dring explain the importance of the ruling.

Why reasonableness matters
A recent adverse High Court ruling against a council over its decision to terminate a claimant law firm's lease is a salutary reminder of the need for authorities to justify their public law decisions, writes Stephen McNamara.

Social care obligations to travellers
Jonathan Auburn and Benjamin Tankel consider the issues raised by a recent High Court ruling on the social care obligations of councils to travellers.

FOIA disclosures: ‘motive blindness’ and risks to mental health
In the light of a recent tribunal ruling, Robin Hopkins considers the question of 'motive blindness' in relation to the Freedom of Information Act regime.

The sound and the fury
Andy Woods looks at a ground breaking deal in which a nightclub has ensured that a 41-storey tower block development nearby implements its own noise control measures to prevent complaints from residents.

Fixed terms and social landlords
Arthur Moore analyses some of the key legal issues surrounding the nature and content of fixed tenancies, with a particular focus on those granted by housing associations.

Flexi-time and unused hours
Claire Deane analyses a key Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling for local authorities and other public bodies that operate flexi-time schemes.

Procedural defects, licence review proceedings and Funky Mojoe
In the Funky Mojoe case the High Court has ruled that procedural defects did not invalidate licence review proceedings. Gary Grant explains why.

The Greasy Pole....
Frustrated at the lack of senior positions available in local government legal practice? Nicholas Dobson gives advice on how to boost your career.

The Care Bill, eligibility criteria and consultation
Jonathan Auburn and Benjamin Tankel examine the introduction through the Care Bill of new eligibility criteria and consider whether local authorities will need to consult and conduct equalities impact analysis.

A “child in need” … Or not?
Tom Amraoui looks at the issues raised by a High Court ruling on whether a local authority was entitled to conclude that a family without immigration status was not destitute.

Don’t let the tale wag the dog
Magnus Boyd looks at the key issues that arise for local government bodies when trying to manage their reputation during litigation.

Constraints on selling public land - the Crichel Down Rules
The Crichel Down Rules can constrain the sale of public land. Gary Philpott looks at the key issues they raise.

To permit or not to permit? Part Two
The publication of PINS guidance on whether permitted development rights apply to dwelling houses used as houses in multiple occupation has failed to deal with a troubling issue, writes John Pugh-Smith.

Applying the sequential test
Clare Hardy reports on a High Court case where it was claimed that a local authority had misunderstood or failed to apply the sequential test when granting a planning permission.

Shoesmith considers appeal after High Court setback
27/04/10: Sharon Shoesmith is considering an appeal after losing her judicial review action over her sacking in the aftermath of the Baby Peter case, and will pursue her tribunal claim as judge suggests that Haringey's procedures looked unfair.

Featured Jobs

Ashford Borough Council Planning Lawyer
Tower Hamlets 2x Contracts Lawyers
Kent CC Property Lawyer
Tower Hamlets 2x Contracts Lawyers
Legal Assistants (Litigation and Planning)
Harrogate Chief Solicitor
Senior Property Lawyer
Legal Assistant (Social Care and Education)
Property Lawyers
DAC Beachcroft Healthcare Regulatoy Lawyer
East Sussex Solicitor Planning and Highways
Contracts/Procurement Lawyers
Housing Lawyer
Coventry Law Centre
Social and Education Lawyers (Child Care)

CLICK HERE to search all current vacancies

Featured Courses & Events

50% off LGLtv subscriptions

Sign up for Courses and Events Updates

* indicates required

Services v2

Yellow pages iStock 000009762383XSmall cropTo access details of individual advertisers, please click on the relevant banner below.

To search all entries in the Local Government Lawyer Services Directory, please click here



 Shout_to_the_top_looking_left_iStock_000006002590XSmall_98x74 Latest Blog Posts





Snap Judgement

Is the role of monitoring officer worth the risk?


Irwin Mitchell 300x100