Defamation, Judicial Review & Public-Law Disputes
Two kinds of dispute meet here: what may be said about a person or business, and what the state and its bodies may lawfully decide. Both are governed by tight rules and tighter timetables — a defamation claim on its limitation, a judicial review on its three-month window — and both reward acting early and precisely.
Reputation and free-speech disputes, and challenges to the decisions of regulators, licensing authorities and disciplinary bodies by way of judicial review.
What we handle
- Defamation claims and defences — libel and slander
- Defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege
- Injunctions restraining publication (and resisting them)
- Judicial review of administrative and regulatory decisions (Order 53)
- Challenges to licensing, disciplinary and professional-body decisions
- Public-law elements of commercial and regulatory disputes
Our approach to a defamation & public law matter
Move before the window closes
Judicial review must ordinarily be commenced within three months of the decision. Much of our earliest work is simply preserving the right to be heard by getting the leave application in on time.
Test the ground
A review succeeds on illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety — not on disagreement with the outcome. We advise candidly on whether a real public-law ground exists before anyone spends on it.
Weigh reputation carefully
In defamation, the remedy and the risk both cut both ways. We advise on whether to sue, to seek an apology, or to defend on justification, fair comment or privilege — and on the cost of being wrong.
Argue it well
These cases are won on written submissions and precise argument. Our head of advocacy leads the drafting, because the court reads the submissions most carefully of all.
The team for defamation & public law
Defamation & Public Law: the questions we are asked
Something false and damaging has been published about my business. Can I sue?
Possibly. A defamation claim requires a defamatory statement, referring to you, published to a third party, without a valid defence such as justification (truth), fair comment or privilege. Remedies include damages and, in a proper case, an injunction. The strength of a claim — and the risk of the defences — needs careful assessment before proceedings, which we provide.
How long do I have to challenge a government or regulator’s decision?
An application for judicial review under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 must ordinarily be made within three months of the date the decision was communicated. The court may extend time only in limited circumstances. Because the window is short and strict, you should seek advice as soon as an adverse decision is made.
What are the grounds for judicial review?
Broadly three: illegality (the decision-maker acted beyond its powers or misdirected itself in law), irrationality (a decision no reasonable authority could have reached), and procedural impropriety (unfairness or a failure to follow a required process). Judicial review examines how a decision was made, not whether the court would have decided differently.