Limitation period in defamation claims—the rule in Dingle as applied to serious harm under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (Wright v McCormack)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What was the background?
• What did the court decide?
• Disapplication of the limitation period
• The rule in Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd
• Case details

Article summary

TMT analysis: Applying the rule in Dingle, evidence of other publications harmful to a claimant’s reputation is not admissible either on the question of serious harm under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) or mitigation of damages. The judgment also considers the disapplication of the one-year limitation period to bring a defamation claim. In the unique circumstances of this case, the claimant was permitted to amend his claim form to include publications outside the limitation period. Written by Michael Frost, managing associate and Joshua Edwards, associate at Mishcon de Reya LLP.