Cadwalladr v Banks

What the court held

Libel claim by Arron Banks over Carole Cadwalladr's 2019 TED Talk and a tweet suggesting he had broken electoral-funding law and lied about it. At first instance Steyn J ([2022] EWHC 1417 (QB)) held the words were defamatory but that the s.4 public-interest defence succeeded for the relevant period. On appeal the Court of Appeal ([2023] EWCA Civ 219) allowed Banks's appeal in part: the defence fell away for continued publication of the TED Talk after the Electoral Commission published a statement, and Cadwalladr was liable for that later period and ordered to pay £35,000 damages and 60% of costs. Widely cited in the UK anti-SLAPP debate.

Key rulings

• S.4 public-interest defence can protect a journalist speaking about a public political financier — but only while it remains reasonable to believe publication is in the public interest.
• The defence must be assessed period-by-period; it can fall away as circumstances change (here, after the Electoral Commission statement).
• Court of Appeal (2023) partly reversed the first-instance result: liability for the post-statement continued publication of the TED Talk, £35,000 damages.
• The courts did NOT find that Banks broke electoral law; the issue was the defamatory imputation and its defence.

Topics

Related cases (citator)

How this case connects to others in the landmark set — lines of authority, statutory supersession, and companion rulings.

• Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23

  Both apply the Defamation Act 2013 s.4 public-interest defence.

• Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127

  Applies the statutory defence that replaced the Reynolds common-law defence.

Acts cited

• Defamation Act 2013

Authoritative source