Which court decided it?

Supreme Court in 2012. Neutral citation: [2012] UKSC 11.

Why does it matter for UK journalists?

Reynolds defence applies with vigour to investigative pieces on public-interest topics. Investigative journalism sometimes requires publishing allegations before they are fully proven. Public interest in disclosure was strong; steps taken by the journalists were reasonable.

Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd

[2012] UKSC 11 — Supreme Court, 2012

Last reviewed: 14 July 2026Next review due: 14 January 2027

What the court held

The Supreme Court upheld the Times's Reynolds/qualified-privilege defence in an article alleging a Metropolitan Police officer had taken bribes. Court reinforced the workability of the responsible-journalism defence for investigative pieces on matters of public interest.

Key rulings

Reynolds defence applies with vigour to investigative pieces on public-interest topics.
Investigative journalism sometimes requires publishing allegations before they are fully proven.
Public interest in disclosure was strong; steps taken by the journalists were reasonable.

Topics

DefamationPublic interest defenceQualified privilege

Related cases (citator)

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

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127
Applied the Reynolds responsible-journalism standard.
Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe [2006] UKHL 44
Part of the Reynolds public-interest line of authority.

Acts cited

Defamation Act 1996

Authoritative source

Read the full judgment on BAILII (British and Irish Legal Information Institute):

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/11.html

Cite this page

Format

Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11 (Supreme Court) &lt;https://www.ukjournohub.com/law/landmark-cases/flood-times-newspapers&gt; accessed 14 July 2026.

Please cite when quoting or paraphrasing on UK JournoHub — see /ai.txt for policy.

Related landmark cases

Landmark caseReynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127Read →Landmark caseCadwalladr v Banks [2022] EWHC 1417 (QB)Read →Landmark caseDoyle v Smith [2018] EWHC 2935 (QB)Read →Landmark caseJameel v Wall Street Journal Europe [2006] UKHL 44Read →

Case summaries are drafted by UK JournoHub Editorial for practising UK journalists. They are not legal advice. Always consult primary sources and, for high-risk stories, take specialist legal advice.