7 crisis management steps every retailer should have in place to respond efficiently & protect your brand
We set out seven practical steps to help retailers to prepare, respond decisively and recover quickly when the unexpected happens.
How the courts treat online defamation — removal order dismissed against domain name registrar
AuthorsGlyn Lancefield
The High Court has dismissed an application for a Removal Order under section 13 of the Defamation Act 2013 against a domain name registrar in a case that will be of interest to anyone deciding who to take legal action against after being defamed online.
Here, Glyn Lancefield takes a closer look at the legal process and what this outcome means.
Applying to remove defamatory statements online
Section 13 of the Defamation Act 2013 allows the Courts to order operators to remove defamatory statements that have been posted on their website. In the case of Xiuling Wei & Others v Jingping Long & Others [2025] EWHC 158 (KB), the High Court considered an application made in relation to the now-expired website domain fishandchips.fans.
The Claimants alleged that they’d been defamed and harassed over a four-month time-period by many hundreds of online posts made on three websites, including fishandchip.fans. The Court granted Judgment against the First Defendant. The Claimants said that the entity that was responsible for the above website was the Fourth Defendant — Porkbun LLC — which is based in Oregon, US. On this basis, the Claimants sought a ‘Removal Order’ against the Fourth Defendant pursuant to section 13 of the Defamation Act 2013.
Legal defence for website operators
In resisting the section 13 Application, the Fourth Defendant referred to section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013, which provides a defence to website operators who can show that they didn’t post the defamatory statements themselves.
The defence is defeated if the Claimant can show that:
- it’s not possible to identify the poster
- they sent notice to the website operator
- the operator failed to respond in compliance with their regulatory obligations.
Here, the Fourth Defendant was only the domain name registrar. It was therefore not possible for it to remove material and it couldn’t have availed itself of a section 5 defence. On this basis, the Court decided that a section 13 ‘Removal Order’ couldn’t be made against the Fourth Defendant.
Ceasing distribution
The Court also considered whether an Order could be made against the Fourth Defendant pursuant to section 13(1)(b) of the Defamation Act 2013, which allows a Ccourt to order someone to cease distributing a defamatory statement even though they aren’t the author, editor or publisher of the statement.
The High Court decided that section 13(1)(b) applies to ‘secondary publishers’ — those who have both knowledge of the defamatory statement and control over its continuing publication. Here, the Court decided that the Fourth Defendant didn’t have that knowledge and control. The Judgment notes that it appears the Courts haven’t yet made any Order pursuant to section 13(1)(b). The Claimants’ Application against the Fourth Defendant was therefore dismissed.
What to do if you’re a victim of online harassment
Earlier this year, we explained what to do if you find yourself the victim of online abuse following a high-profile dispute where comments on social media gave rise to claims for defamation, harassment and invasion of privacy.
Our advice included collecting evidence, acting fast and seeking specialist legal advice to resolve the matter in the most effective and efficient way possible.
Talk to us
It’s clear from this decision that while operators of websites can still be liable to a section 13 ‘Removal Order’, domain name registrars can’t.
If you need advice, our defamation and harassment lawyers are here to guide you. We have a strong track record in securing significant damages, apologies, retractions and other orders to protect the rights of our clients.
Talk to us by giving us a call on 0333 004 4488, sending us an email at hello@brabners.com or completing the contact form below.
Talk to us
Loading form...
Related insights
Am I a data controller? GDPR for social media users explained
We look at the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 and outline how the GDPR can apply to both organisations and individuals as data controllers.
International arbitration — the scope of supervisory jurisdiction & anti-suit injunctions following Star Hydro
We outline the Court of Appeal’s decision, consider how the Supreme Court is likely to approach the appeal and highlight five key takeaways.
How the CJC’s litigation funding reforms aim to restore certainty after PACCAR
We examine the CJC’s recommendations and their implications for funders, claimants and practitioners navigating this evolving area.
3 potential ways generative AI could lead to defamation claims
We explain where generative AI has the potential to damage individuals’ reputations and examine relevant case law from other jurisdictions.
Brabners secures favourable policy construction judgment for Acasta
Our award-winning litigation team has secured a High Court judgment in favour of Acasta European Insurance Company Limited.
London expansion & record revenues drive next phase of growth at Brabners
We’re delighted to announce the opening of a new office in London, marking a major milestone at the end of a year defined by strong financial performance.
PR under fire — what happens when clients sue?
We explore the types of claims that PR firms can face when an initial complaint escalates and outline some practical steps to manage the risks.
Navigating partnership conflict in law firms — 10 top tips to prevent disputes
We share ten top tips for preventing partnership disputes and guidance on recognising the warning signs and responding effectively if conflict does arise.
HyNot judicial review decision highlights the importance of acting promptly
We explore how the Court considered the requirement of promptness, the arguments made and what this means for claimants considering judicial review.
Lights, camera, litigation — The Lost King case
We explore the legal and reputational implications of dramatising ‘real life’ events for the screen.
English Devolution & Community Empowerment Bill — what it means for retail leases
We explore what the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill means in practice and how its reforms may affect both retail tenants and landlords.
Employment tribunal early conciliation period doubles to 12 weeks
Individuals who want to take an employment case to a tribunal must first take part in a longer conciliation process.
The Times Best Law Firms
We're thrilled to have been commended in three separate categories in The Times Best Law Firms 2026.
Restrictive covenant dispute — Brabners secures successful judgment for Docutech Office Solutions Ltd
Our litigation team achieved a successful outcome for Docutech Office Solutions Ltd in a major claim against a former employee and his new employer.
Probate costs recoverable in litigation: SCCO clarifies its position in key costs ruling
Andrew Tindall examines new guidance from the Senior Courts Costs Office on recovering probate costs.
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry announces publication of the first part of its final report
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry Chair has announced that the first part of his final report will be published this Summer.
Charity trustees & social media — insights from the Gary Mond case
What happened in Gary Mond’s case? We explore why this offers more clarity to charity trustees around social media activity.
Defamation and harassment on social media — what to do if you’re a victim of online abuse
Our litigation team explores recent cases and what to do if you’re subjected to online defamation or harassment.
Verbal abuse in women’s football on the rise — what legal protections are available for players?
We outline the issues being faced by players, the actions clubs are taking and what legal protections are available to help prevent and prosecute abuse.
Half-secret commissions and informed consent between brokers and customers
We explore how the Courts treat customers who have been charged “half secret” commissions by their energy brokers.
Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal clarifies appropriate use of Without Prejudice labels and SLAPP guidance
Solicitor Ashley Hurst found himself at the centre of regulatory action brought by the SRA.
How to deal with a negative online review about your business
Our litigation team explores the options businesses have when it comes to dealing with negative online reviews — whether the review is honest or dishonest.
Media and communications claims — could pre-action dispute resolution become compulsory?
Here, commercial litigator Glyn Lancefield outlines the proposed changes to the pre-action protocol for media and communications claims.
Arbitration Act 2025 — new legislation to strengthen UK’s position as dispute resolution leader
Experienced commercial litigator Matthew Moy explains what arbitration is and how the AA 2025 will help to clarify and refine key aspects of the arbitration process by improving efficiency, fairness and legal certainty.