“Defamation requires publication causing reputational damage, not necessarily widespread dissemination.”
A police officer made defamatory statements about Rhodes to Rhodes' employer, leading to disciplinary action. Rhodes sued for defamation, arguing that publication to one person was sufficient for a defamation claim.
Whether publication of defamatory material to a single person can constitute actionable defamation and what constitutes 'serious harm' under the Defamation Act 2013.
The Supreme Court held that publication to one person can constitute defamation if it causes serious harm to reputation. The claim could proceed.
This case clarified the publication requirement in defamation law and interpreted the 'serious harm' test under the Defamation Act 2013. It's important for understanding modern defamation law and the balance between free speech and reputation protection.
You're reading the free summary of Rhodes v OPO. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.