How the courts treat online defamation — removal order dismissed against domain name registrar

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.