Super-wealthy persons residing in the UK or visiting the country don't necessarily relish the public eye - this article considers the shifting sands of defamation law and the consequent need for clear thinking on the subject.

Libel cases in the London courts often involve relatively wealthy persons - often for the brute fact that hiring libel lawyers doesn't come cheap. (This fact is one of the reasons why the libel laws of England and Wales are frowned upon, with demands for reform). There are, meanwhile, cases of foreign-born individuals who spend time in the UK using the London courts to do battle over their reputations. Reputation protection is one of those aspects of wealth management highlighting how the industry goes beyond purely financial issues, although battles over reputations can prove costly. This article examines the issue and is from Dominic Crossley and Sarah Webb, partners within Payne Hicks Beach's privacy and media law team. The views expressed here aren't necessarily shared in full by the editors of this publication but we are pleased to receive such contributions on this important topic, and invite readers to respond. Readers can contact the editor at tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com

Oscar Wilde famously remarked: “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about”. For those whose careers require them to be in the public eye, this witticism continues to resonate. But for many, including the international ultra-wealthy who set up their homes in London and elsewhere in the UK, the scrutiny and glare of the UK and international media is anything but welcome.

Examples of such individuals are increasingly extensive, whether they be from the Middle East, Europe or elsewhere. Perhaps Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovic is the best example: he is super rich with high profile assets in the UK, but seeks no personal media exposure. But what can Abramovic do about the drip, drip, drip of adverse coverage?

Since the new Defamation Act 2013 which came into force in January 2014, new challenges face those seeking the protection of libel law.  Section 9 of the Act has made it much more difficult for anyone to sue a person who is not domiciled in the United Kingdom or in another Member State or in a state which is part of the Lugano Convention.

International publications can have a serious impact upon the UK based foreign communities.  In Mr Abamovic's case he is likely to be particularly concerned about the substantial UK Russian community. But even if a story is easily and widely available on the internet in England and Wales, it can now be much harder for somebody to bring an action against a media company or website based oversees.

Under Section 1 of the same Act, an individual now has the additional hurdle of having to show that a story is causing substantial harm.  Publishers now argue that small inaccuracies should not be stopped or removed because of this rule. Can the complainant show substantial harm in respect of one particular article or part of an article even if it is untrue?

Persistent inaccuracy threat
So the threat of a libel action is diminished, but persistent inaccuracy can have a cumulative effect.  Either the inaccuracy is repeated and commented on elsewhere or further inaccuracies can begin to cause substantial damage to reputation. In particular, credit agencies used by banks will often point to a series of articles to justify its rating (although we suspect that Mr Abramovic has no such problems).

There is more. Section 2 of the Act revises the defence of truth and is wider than the old defence of justification, now only requiring the Defendant to show “imputation conveyed is substantially true”. Section 3 has strengthened the defence of honest opinion on matters of public interest, covering comment pieces and analysis. There has been plenty of such comment on those with views upon the success of Chelsea Football Club and its funding.

But it is not all bad news for Roman Abramovic and co. Well advised, there can be a mixture of practical, regulatory and legal steps to protect reputation from untrue and damaging publications. Even with the new hurdles of the Defamation Act, a reputable publication will usually be persuaded that clear inaccuracies should not be published and few would welcome a libel action when the story is sufficiently serious to merit it (it will often be a careful judgment deciding which articles cross the line).

Privacy is becoming an increasingly powerful tool, with the additional merit of the availability of an injunction, not usually available in libel. Recent European and UK legislation have seen new utilisation in the Data Protection Act in relation to inaccurate, private or out of data information. This Act is being deployed in addition to defamation and privacy claims, but its most common utilisation is probably in complaints to Google for it to prevent its searches returning unwanted images in and articles.

Beyond legal action, companies such as those that operate Chelsea FC will consider their corporate structures and governance to ensure that it protects an individual from a commercial point of view and from a reputational point of view.

Wealthy individuals, and those far less wealthy than Mr Abramovic, are increasingly realising the need to have appropriate public relations in place even if it is not their wish to generate publicity. They should ensure that their online public profile is accurate and that they can put their messages across using a range of different methods and platforms when they need to.

The message is: by being adequately prepared you can still protect your good reputation even in the complex legal and online world.