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

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

Related landmark cases

Landmark caseReynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127Read →Landmark caseCadwalladr v Banks [2022] EWHC 1435 (QB)Read →Landmark caseJameel v Wall Street Journal Europe [2006] UKHL 44Read →Landmark caseSerafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23Read →

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.