At the speed of a click, reputations can be built – or broken. At its core, defamation involves the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual or company. The law draws a firm distinction between ‘libel’ and ‘slander’ based on the form of the defamatory statement – so, what’s the difference?
What is defamation?
Defamation relates to a false statement (which can either be written or oral). Broadly, the test is whether a statement would cause one to think less of the person or company it refers to. Defamatory statements can range from allegations of dishonesty and incompetence, to immoral or illegal conduct. Such statements are considered to be defamatory if the publication of the statement has caused – or is likely to cause – serious harm to the reputation of an individual or company.
Libel: the written sting
The key feature of libel is permanence. Unlike slander, libel covers defamatory statements recorded in a lasting form – such as newspaper articles, emails, blog posts – even drawings, and in particular, social media content. As these forms can be shared, stored and revisited, the harm to reputation tends to be more enduring. As a result, the courts treat it as inherently more damaging and usually do not require proof of actual loss.
A prime example of libel was considered in the high profile case commonly known as the “Wagatha Christie” trial – Vardy v Rooney [2022] EWHC 2017 (QB), [2022] All ER (D) 28 (Aug).
This case arose following the publication of a social media post by Coleen Rooney concerning Rebecca Vardy back in October 2019. Ms Rooney publicly accused Ms Vardy of leaking private stories to the press via social media, which went viral. Ms Rooney was able to invoke the defence of truth, because the statements in the post were in fact true. The High Court ruled in Ms Rooney’s favour, dismissing the defamation claim. In recent news and after a protracted and very public battle, Ms Vardy was required to pay nearly £1.2 million in Ms Rooney’s legal costs.
This case highlights the evolving legal landscape surrounding libel; such claims were commonly limited to newspapers but the rise in use of social media has significantly widened their scope. More than ever, it is important for individuals to be cautious about what they publish online – however casual – as the posts may be treated with the same seriousness as traditional print publication.
Slander: “word of mouth”
Slander is transient. It relates to defamatory statements that are conveyed through spoken words, as well as sounds, looks, signs, gestures or any other temporary form. This requires proof of the actual words spoken (as demonstrated in the case below) and it is not sufficient for witnesses to simply state what they consider the substance or the effect of the words to be, or their impression of what has been said.
Notably, slander, unlike libel, also requires proof of specific financial loss, unless the statement falls under an exception: i) imputing a criminal offence or ii) making an allegation likely to damage an individual’s or company’s reputation in their current office, professional, calling, trade or business.
In the sporting landscape, particularly boxing, spoken words are often used to build the hype and provoke the opponent, bringing with it large public interest in the event. Verbal insults and accusations can be seen to be part of the “culture” – but they can often cross the line.
A recent example is the high profile boxing event of Christopher Eubank Junior vs Nigel Benn. Mr Eubank spoke at a press conference concerning his opponent. During the conference, which was published across many media platforms, Eubank made a damning public statement about Frank Warren (Mr Benn’s boxing promoter), calling him a “scumbag” and accusing him of “lying and cheating his way through boxing” – resulting in the defamation claim of Warren v Eubank Jr [2025] EWHC 828 (KB).
After considering the arguments put forward by the parties’ legal representatives during a preliminary hearing, the court found Mr Warren’s analysis of the statement to be “overly wordy and complex” and the court adopted a simpler formulation of the words actually spoken. Despite this finding, the matter has reportedly been “settled amicably” out of court in recent weeks.
Key considerations
With the rise of digital communications, the line between libel and slander can blur (e.g. livestreams, voice notes, posts that vanish but are recorded) but the key takeaway remains: the form of a statement shapes how the law treats the harm it causes.
How can we help?
If someone has said or published something false about you or your brand, reputation management lawyers in our commercial disputes team can assist.
