This is a site designed to make it easier to take the core of large published reports and allow anyone to comment on them.


13. One argument put forward for maintaining the multiple publication rule is that there is a limited likelihood of actions being brought in respect of archive material only; and that where a cause of action does arise, it seems unfair to deny a claimant the right to redress if they were to become aware of the publication of defamatory material through accessing archive material rather than the initial publication. However, there is also the counter-argument that such a rule creates potentially open-ended liability and therefore defeats the purpose of having a limitation period to protect defendants from extended liability.

Email this to a friend.
Previous itemNext item.


(You must give a valid email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)

We only allow the following html tags em strong blockquote p br. After posting, there may be a short delay before your comment appears on the site