Defamation Risk Checklist for UK Journalists

The Defamation Act 2013 raised the bar for claimants — but the risk of a costly, career-damaging claim remains real. Run through this checklist before every sensitive publication.

Information, not legal advice. This checklist is an educational tool only. For stories carrying significant defamation risk, a legal read by a qualified media lawyer is essential before publication. Read our full disclaimer.

Last reviewed: 17 May 2026Next review due: 17 November 2026

9 min read

What is defamation and when does it arise?

Defamation is a statement that tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or that causes them to be shunned or avoided, or that exposes them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. In practice, a defamation claim arises when: (1) you have published a statement; (2) the statement refers to a specific identifiable person or entity; (3) the statement would be understood to make a defamatory imputation; and (4) the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the claimant’s reputation (the threshold added by the Defamation Act 2013).

The serious harm threshold — confirmed in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27 — was designed to filter out trivial claims. But it does not remove defamation risk from investigative journalism: allegations of dishonesty, criminality, professional misconduct, sexual impropriety, or financial wrongdoing all carry serious potential reputational harm. Companies bringing claims must also show serious financial loss — a higher bar than for individuals, but one that large commercial claimants can often meet.

“A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.”

Defamation Act 2013, s.1 — Serious harmlegislation.gov.ukE+W+S

The main defences

“It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.”

Defamation Act 2013, s.2 — Truthlegislation.gov.ukE+W

Truth (s.2)

If the statement is substantially true, the claim fails. You must be able to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Gather evidence before publication, not after.

Honest Opinion (s.3)

Protects comment and opinion clearly presented as such, where the opinion could be held by an honest person on the basis of facts that existed at the time. Not a defence for factual allegations.

Public Interest (s.4)

The statement is on a matter of public interest and you reasonably believed publishing it was in the public interest. Document your reasoning. This is a high-quality defence for investigative work.

Privilege

Absolute privilege covers fair and accurate reports of court proceedings (s.14 Defamation Act 1996). Qualified privilege covers other reports on public bodies, public meetings, and official documents subject to limits.

When defamation risk is highest

1Allegations of criminal conduct, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption — particularly against named individuals.
2Stories that impute serious professional incompetence or misconduct.
3Sexual allegations, particularly if the subject denies them and you have limited corroboration.
4Stories that conflate two people with similar names — identification errors are a common source of claims.
5Reporting based on a single source whose account you cannot independently verify.
6Stories where the subject has been given no opportunity to respond, or where their response was ignored without good reason.
7Aggregation of individually innocuous facts that together convey a defamatory meaning.
8Headlines or social media pull-quotes that are stronger than the article supports.

Red flags in your story

The factual basis for the main allegation rests on a single anonymous source.
You have evidence but it does not conclusively prove the allegation on the balance of probabilities.
The subject has denied the allegation and provided documents you have not fully examined.
The headline or intro makes a stronger claim than the body of the article supports.
You are relying on someone else's published statement — repeating a defamatory statement is also defamatory.
A company rather than an individual is the claimant — remember the financial loss test.
The story is old and the limitation period may restart if substantially republished.
You have not given the subject a fair and reasonable right of reply before publication.

Pre-publication defamation checklist

I have identified every identifiable person and entity referred to by the story.
I have assessed whether the story carries a defamatory meaning about any of them.
I have a defence available for each potentially defamatory allegation (truth, honest opinion, privilege, or public interest).
Where relying on truth: I have contemporaneous evidence capable of proving the allegation on the balance of probabilities.
Where relying on public interest: I have documented my public interest reasoning in the editorial file.
I have given the subject(s) a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond, with a clear deadline.
I have reviewed the headline, standfirst, and social media copy to ensure they do not overstate the body text.
I have confirmed I am not repeating an allegation made by a third party without my own independent verification.
I have checked for identification errors — am I certain my story refers to the right person?
For high-risk stories: I have had the copy read by a media lawyer before publication.

Tools for defamation risk

Use our defamation risk assessment tool and right-of-reply generator before filing sensitive stories.

Defamation Risk Checker Right of Reply Generator

Common mistakes

Assuming a story is safe because it is true — truth must be provable, not just believed.
Writing a headline that conveys a stronger meaning than the article supports.
Repeating someone else's allegation without verifying it independently.
Failing to offer a right of reply, or not giving enough time for a meaningful response.
Confusing individuals with similar names or titles — misidentification claims are common.
Deleting an article without taking legal advice when threatened — deletion without replacement can look like an admission.
Not preserving evidence: notes, recordings, documents, emails relating to a story should be kept securely.
Assuming the journalist's insurance covers a freelance piece not commissioned through the insured outlet.

Related guides

Privacy & Misuse of Private Information

Article 8 privacy, the two-stage test, and public interest.

Contempt of Court

Active proceedings and what you can safely publish.

Defamation Law Full Guide

Extended guide with case law, worked examples, and legal threats.

Journalism Ethics

Ethical obligations around accuracy, fairness, and right of reply.

Primary sources

Defamation Act 2013— legislation.gov.uk
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27— BAILII
Defamation Act 1996 — privilege provisions— legislation.gov.uk
IPSO Editors' Code — accuracy and opportunity to reply— IPSO
NUJ Code of Conduct — accuracy— National Union of Journalists
Ministry of Justice — Defamation Act 2013 guidance— GOV.UK

Frequently asked questions

What is the serious harm threshold and why does it matter?

The Defamation Act 2013 s.1 requires claimants to show that a statement has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. 'Serious' is not trivial upset — Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27 confirmed that serious harm must be proved by the claimant with reference to actual facts about consequences, not just the meaning and nature of the words. For companies, serious harm means serious financial loss. This threshold filters out minor claims.

What is the difference between libel and slander?

Libel is defamation in a permanent form — written articles, broadcasts, podcasts, social media posts, and online publications. Slander is spoken defamation. For journalists, almost all defamation risk is in libel, and for libel there is no need to prove actual damage (unlike most slander claims). The serious harm test still applies to both.

What does the public interest defence cover and what are its limits?

Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides a defence where: (a) the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and (b) the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement was in the public interest. This replaced the old 'Reynolds privilege.' It is not enough that the story is interesting — it must genuinely serve the public interest, and the journalist's belief that publishing was in the public interest must be reasonable. Document your reasoning before publication.

What is the single publication rule?

Under s.8 of the Defamation Act 2013, a defamation action must be brought within one year of the first publication. For online content, the clock runs from when the material was first made available — not from each time it is accessed. However, a 'materially different' republication (such as a substantially updated article, or a new tweet promoting an old piece) may restart the clock.

What should I do when I receive a legal threat post-publication?

Do not panic. Do not delete or modify the article without taking advice — deletion may be treated as an admission. Preserve all notes, correspondence, recordings, and evidence relating to the story. Contact your editor and legal department immediately. If you are a freelancer, contact the NUJ or a media lawyer. Document when the threat arrived. Many pre-action letters are fishing exercises; the majority never lead to a claim. But you must respond correctly within any stated deadline.