The Defamation Act 2013 and CPR 3.4 and 24: a sting in causation’s tail

Peter Coe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Examines the Court of Appeal judgment in Tesla Motors Ltd v BBC on whether the claim that a review of a vehicle on the BBC "Top Gear" programme constituted malicious falsehood should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2) on the ground there was insufficient evidence to show that any loss in revenue suffered by the manufacturer was attributable to the review. Considers the implications of the decision for commercial claimants seeking to establish that defamation caused them "serious harm", which, pursuant to the Defamation Act 2013 s.1(2), requires evidence of actual or likely serious financial loss.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)93-96
Number of pages4
JournalEntertainment Law Review
Volume25
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Keywords

  • causation
  • defamation
  • economic loss
  • malicious falsehood
  • striking out

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The Defamation Act 2013 and CPR 3.4 and 24: a sting in causation’s tail'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this