Which court decided it?

House of Lords in 1999. Neutral citation: [2001] 2 AC 127.

Why does it matter for UK journalists?

Ten factors bearing on responsible journalism (seriousness, nature of information, source, verification steps, urgency, comment sought, defendant's side included, tone, timing). No new absolute privilege — court declined a generic "political information" privilege. Public-interest publication protected where journalist had acted responsibly.

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd

[2001] 2 AC 127 — House of Lords, 1999

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

What the court held

The House of Lords set out a ten-factor test for the common-law defence of qualified privilege in defamation involving matters of public interest. The Reynolds defence protected responsible journalism that met the standard of "responsible journalism". Superseded in statute by Defamation Act 2013 s.4, but Reynolds factors remain persuasive.

Key rulings

Ten factors bearing on responsible journalism (seriousness, nature of information, source, verification steps, urgency, comment sought, defendant's side included, tone, timing).
No new absolute privilege — court declined a generic "political information" privilege.
Public-interest publication protected where journalist had acted responsibly.

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/UKHL/1999/45.html

Related landmark cases

Landmark caseFlood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11Read →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.