Fast-track defamation laws delayed after lawyers complain they `just wouldn't work'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.GOVERNMENT PLANS to introduce judge-only libel trials have been postponed after the Lord Chancellor was warned that the new rules would create chaos.
Radical changes in the law aimed at helping people with limited funds, who wouldn't normally be able to afford to bring a claim for libel, were due to come into force in January.
These would have created a "fast track" defamation procedure where damages are limited to pounds 10,000. Cases would be heard by a judge sitting on his own without a jury, reducing the cost of litigation.
But during consultation with the legal profession it became clear there were serious shortcomings in the rules. Lawyers claimed that they had been poorly drafted and, in some cases, even used the wrong legal terminology. "They just wouldn't work," one solicitor said.
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, told lawyers in September that they must be ready for the new rules on 1 January. But his department confirmed yesterday that they would not now be implemented until the spring.
Lawyers specialising in defamation (which includes libel and slander) also have grave doubts about the popularity of the fast-track system. "Who wants to limit oneself to pounds 10,000 when with a jury there's always a chance of winning much more?" asked one.
David Lock, parliamentary secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department, also announced a separate consultation on libel laws, which would include the issue of fighting funds. Although he was at pains not to refer to the Hamilton-Fayed libel case, which ended this week, Mr Lock said he was concerned "in general, that people can help to fund a substantial libel action and then walk away if it fails, leaving costs unpaid".
Lord Harris of High Cross, who administered the fighting fund in the Hamilton action, said it had reached pounds 500,000 but acknowledged that this would not meet the estimated pounds 2m cost of the trial.
The judge in the case, Mr Justice Morland, ruled that the names of those who contrib-uted more than pounds 5,000 to Mr Hamilton's fund should be disclosed to Mohamed Al Fayed's lawyers.
Other issues of libel law to be looked at by the Government include the use of the Internet by people without funds to libel other people. Ministers are also concerned that the rich can use the threat of libel proceedings to suppress legitimate public comment.
"It is said that the late Robert Maxwell used to issue writs as a way of preventing anyone else from commenting on the allegations while having little intention of proceeding with the action," added Mr Lock.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments