What is the difference between libel and slander?

Both are forms of defamation — publishing a false statement that harms someone's reputation. The difference is the form the statement takes.

Libel is defamation in a permanent form — writing, print, online posts, emails, images, and (by statute) broadcasting and theatrical performance.

Slander is defamation in a transient form — principally spoken words and gestures.

Why the distinction historically mattered. Libel was actionable per se, meaning the claimant did not need to prove financial loss. Slander generally required proof of special damage — actual quantifiable loss — except in certain categories such as allegations of a serious crime or of unfitness for a profession.

The Defamation Act 2013 reduced the practical difference considerably by introducing a serious harm threshold that applies to both. A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to reputation — and for a company, serious financial loss. This raised the bar for all defamation claims and was intended to stop trivial and vexatious ones.

Most cases now are libel, because most communication is written or online, and almost anything on social media is libel rather than slander.

The main defences under the 2013 Act:

Truth. If the statement is substantially true, the claim fails. This is the complete defence, and the burden is on the defendant to prove it — a feature that has long made English defamation law claimant-friendly compared with the US.

Honest opinion, provided the statement was clearly opinion, indicated its basis, and an honest person could have held it.

Publication on a matter of public interest, where the defendant reasonably believed publication was in the public interest.

Privilege, absolute or qualified, covering parliamentary and court proceedings and fair reporting of them.

Limitation is one year, and sharing someone else's defamatory statement can itself be publication.