CALL US TODAY: 0203 983 8278
Home // The Defamation v Free Speech Debate: The Case of Bonnard v Perryman (1891)

The conflict between defamation and free speech remains a major issue in both legal and cultural situations. The case of Bonnard v Perryman (1891) provides the foundation for understanding the way courts balance the potential harm caused by defamatory comments with the right we all have to express ourselves freely.

What happened in Bonnard v Perryman?

Bonnard v Perryman was a claim for libel. Bonnard were newspaper publishers, and they claimed that Perryman had published defamatory comments that could damage their reputation. Perryman claimed his words were factual and represented reasonable commentary on an issue of public concern.

Bonnard sought an interim injunction to prevent the defendant from publishing any future allegedly defamatory remarks while the trial was underway. The legal question was whether the court should impose the injunction, bearing in mind that such an order would effectively silence the defendant before a complete trial could decide all the issues.

What did the court decide in Bonnard v Perryman?

The court’s ruling in Bonnard v Perryman is significant because it confirmed that temporary injunctions in defamation cases should be given sparingly. Lord Coleridge CJ stated that the court must exercise caution in limiting free expression. He emphasised that unless the defendant could demonstrate that the comments were undoubtedly false or there was no likelihood of a successful response from the plaintiff, the court should not give an injunction.

The decision underscores the importance of free speech, particularly on subjects of public concern. It also established a key principle of defamation law: that temporary remedies in defamation lawsuits should not be used to unnecessarily restrict freedom of expression. The court ruled that only in exceptional circumstances should such a drastic step be taken.

The implications for defamation law

The decision in Bonnard v Perryman has profound implications for defamation law and freedom of speech. It underscores the judiciary’s unwillingness to restrict free expression, and it sets a high standard for a plaintiff seeking temporary injunctions in defamation cases. This all serves to emphasise the significance of vigorous debate and criticism in a democratic society. In summary:

  1. Threshold for Injunctions: The case established that temporary injunctions should only be obtained where the comment is clearly defamatory. This protects individuals from being silenced before a full judicial enquiry into the complained of comments.
  2. Public Interest and Fair Comment: The case emphasised the need for fair discussion on topics of public interest. It emphasised that individuals have the right to voice their ideas, even if they are harsh or critical, as long as they are founded on facts and real convictions.
  3. Chilling Effect: The ruling reduces the potential for defamation claims to have a chilling impact on free speech. Individuals and the media may be discouraged from participating in public debate if courts were to impose injunctions on a regular basis.

Contemporary relevance

The concepts outlined in Bonnard v Perryman remain relevant today. Modern defamation law addresses comparable challenges, especially in the digital era, when information spreads quickly and internationally. The balance between preserving people’s reputations and maintaining freedom of speech is perhaps even more challenging.

The internet has changed the context of defamation, allowing defamatory words to reach a large audience quickly. Courts must manage the difficulties of internet communication, taking into account its speed and scope of dissemination.

There are continuous discussions and legal developments aimed at improving defamation laws to better balance these interests. For example, the UK’s Defamation Act 2013 enacted steps to simplify defamation proceedings while protecting freedom of speech, following the principles of Bonnard v Perryman.

Finally it is worth noting that different jurisdictions across the globe approach the balance of defamation remedies and free speech differently. However the concepts set out in Bonnard v Perryman provide a useful starting point for comparative study.

Conclusion

The case of Bonnard v Perryman remains a landmark reference in defamation law, articulating critical concepts that protect free expression while providing a remedy for reputational injury. Its influence lives on in modern legal systems, emphasising the importance of taking a thoughtful and balanced approach to interim injunctions in defamation cases. As society evolves, the debate over safeguarding reputations and preserving free expression will likely shift, led by the fundamental ideas articulated in this historic judgement.

Contact Us

At Nath Solicitors, we specialise in defamation law. If you need advice contact us on 0203 983 8278 or get in touch with Shubha Nath at enquiries@nathsolicitors.co.uk or at shubha@nathsolicitors.co.uk.

 

    CONTACT US TODAY

    I accept the privacy policy

    To prove you are not a robot, please answer the following question:

    Testimonials

    Copyright. Nath Solicitors Limited. Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 08724944. VAT number: 207490711. Office Located at: 35 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5BF. Nath Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. Registration number 608014. Terms Of Use. Privacy Policy. Cookies Policy. Complaints Procedure.