KB-2022-003483 - [2025] EWHC 1912 (KB)

Section 12(1) of the 2013 Act provides that the Court may order the defendant to publish a summary of the judgment, where judgment has been given for the claimant in an action for defamation. Section 12(2) states that the wording of the summary and the time, manner, form and place of its publication are for the parties to agree. However, subsections (3) and (4) addresses a situation where the parties cannot reach agreement on the wording or on the time, manner, form and/or place of publication; the wording is to be settled by the Court and the Court may give such directions as to time, manner, form and/or place of publication as it considers reasonable and practicable in the circumstances.

The decision whether to make a section 12(1) order is a discretionary one. Nicklin J identified the applicable principles in Monir v Wood [2018] EWHC 3525 (QB). The order represents an interference with a defendant’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression and, as such, must be justified. However, it may be justified by the legitimate aim of “the protection of the reputation or rights of others” on the particular facts of the case and provided the statement is also necessary and proportionate (para 240). Nicklin J continued:

“There is an obvious purpose, in an appropriate case, for ordering a newspaper to publish a summary of the judgment because there is a realistic basis on which to conclude that the published summary will come to the attention of at least some of those who read the original libel and others who may have learned about the allegation via the ‘grapevine’ effect…Each case will depend upon its own facts. If the defendant has already published a retraction and apology, then, depending upon its terms, that may mean that an order under s.12 is not justifiable or required. The claimant will be able to point to that to assist in his vindication or repair to his reputation.”