Which court decided it?

House of Lords in 2006. Neutral citation: [2006] UKHL 44.

Why does it matter for UK journalists?

Reynolds factors are non-exhaustive pointers, not conditions. The defence is not lost by minor faults in the journalist's conduct. Corporations must prove financial loss (later codified in Defamation Act 2013 s.1(2)).

Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe

[2006] UKHL 44 — House of Lords, 2006

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

What the court held

The House of Lords reinforced and refined the Reynolds public-interest defence. Applied a more permissive interpretation of the ten factors, treating them as pointers rather than a rigid checklist. Corporate claimants must show damage to the trading interests to sue in defamation.

Key rulings

Reynolds factors are non-exhaustive pointers, not conditions.
The defence is not lost by minor faults in the journalist's conduct.
Corporations must prove financial loss (later codified in Defamation Act 2013 s.1(2)).

Topics

DefamationPublic interest defenceCorporate claimants

Authoritative source

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

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/44.html

Related landmark cases

Landmark caseCadwalladr v Banks [2022] EWHC 1435 (QB)Read →Landmark caseFlood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11Read →Landmark caseReynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127Read →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.