Bailey v publisher (IMPRESS scheme, DAS-01218)
IMPRESS · Press · England and Wales
Why it matters
A defendant-side win that shows the scheme is not one-sided: where a publisher establishes the section 4 public-interest defence, the claim fails, and the scheme's rules still shield the claimant from a costs order.
Summary
This is a press-arbitration decision under the IMPRESS scheme, Alexander Robert Bailey (Claimant) v Respondent publisher. The scheme offers a low-cost alternative to a libel action in the High Court, letting a complaint against a regulated publisher be decided by an arbitrator appointed through CIArb. The full award, with its findings and any remedy, is set out in the original. Here the publisher succeeded on the public-interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, so the claim failed; and under the scheme rules no order for costs may be made against a claimant, even one who loses. The full award is linked here.
The detail
Parties: Alexander Robert Bailey (Claimant) v Respondent publisher
Case number: CIArb/IMPRESS Scheme Arbitration DAS-01218-Y0S3H
Outcome: Claim failed: the publisher established the public-interest defence under section 4 Defamation Act 2013 across the articles; no order for costs against the claimant.
Applicable law: Defamation Act 2013, section 4 (publication on a matter of public interest); Arbitration Act 1996; CIArb/IMPRESS scheme rules.
Issues in play: A claimant's reputation against the statutory public-interest defence that protects responsible journalism on matters the public has a legitimate interest in.
Read the full decision at IMPRESS ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.