Defamation in sport – A comparison of the law in France, England and Australia
The sports world has recently seen several high profile defamation actions involving sportspersons including Spanish tennis player Rafael Nadal, former Australian rugby league player Brett Stewart and West Indies cricketer Chris Gayle. It is hard to recall three libel suits having such an impact on the sports world at the same time.
This article explores how the laws of defamation compare in England, Australia, and France. It examines key areas such as limitation periods, procedure, defences and, crucially, damages. It also demonstrates that a similar set of facts might yield a different result depending on the jurisdiction, and that claimants in England and Australia enjoy considerable benefits compared to France. Specifically, it examines:
- The background to the defamation cases brought by Brett Stewart, Rafael Nadal and Chris Gale;
- Limitation periods in each jurisdiction;
- Strict procedural requirements in France;
- Absence of a “serious harm” test in Australia;
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Australia | Defamation | France | Libel | United Kingdom (UK)
- Financial Fair Play: How clubs justify spending & related party transactions
- Building Momentum: The evolution of women’s wages In Australian Professional Team Sports
- The Lifecycle Of An International Athlete – Protecting Your Reputation
Mathilde is a Legal Adviser in Carter-Ruck’s Media Litigation group. She has assisted on various defamation cases representing claimants and defendants, individuals and corporations, including on the first trial concerning the issue of serious harm in the Defamation Act 2013.