Reed Elsevier UK Ltd (t/a Lexisnexis) & Anor v Bewry
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE LEWISON
- LADY JUSTICE MACUR
- LADY JUSTICE SHARP
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a libel suit filed by a foster carer against LexisNexis and CCI for publishing a legal case note allegedly implying he was a paedophile. The claimant sought to disapply the one-year limitation period under Section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980. The court of first instance allowed this, but on appeal, it was decided that the claimant had not provided sufficient explanation for the delay in issuing proceedings. The appeal was allowed, and the original ruling to disapply the limitation period was overturned.
Judgment
Lady Justice Sharp :
This is an appeal from a decision of HH Judge Moloney QC of 10 October 2013, granting the claimant’s application made pursuant to section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period in his proceedings for libel and dismissing the defendants’ application to strike out the claimant’s claim under CPR rule 3.4(2).
Section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that an action for defamation or malicious falsehood shall not be brought after the expiry of one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued (which in libel claims is the date of publication).
Under the law which applies to this claim, a separate cause of action accrues for each individual publication of a libel, which is then subject to its own limitation period: see Duke of Brunswick v Harmer [1849] 14 QB 185 . Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 (in force from 1 January 2014) has changed the position, by the introduction of the single publication rule. It provides that for purposes of section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 a cause of action in defamation will be treated as having accrued on the date of the first publication, if a person publishes a statement and subsequently publishes that statement or a statement which is substantially similar.
Section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 (section 32A) enables the court to disapply section 4A. It provides as follows:
(1) If it appears to the court that it would be equitable to allow an action to proceed having regard to the degree to which –
(a) the operation of section 4A of this Act prejudices the plaintiff or any person whom he represents, and
(b) any decision of the court under this subsection would prejudice the defendant or any person he represents,
the court may direct that the section shall not apply to the action or shall not apply to any specified cause of action to which the action relates.
(2) In acting under this section the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to –
(a) the length of, and reasons for, the delay on the part of the plaintiff;
(b) where the reason or one of the reasons for the delay was that all or any of the facts relevant to the cause of action did not become known to the plaintiff until after the end of the period mentioned in section 4A –
(i) the date on which any such facts did become known to him, and
(ii) the extent to which he acted promptly and reasonably once he knew whether or not the facts in quest