Exemplary Damages for Media Torts
Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: UK Government
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
Exemplary damages (whether so described or renamed as punitive damages) should be available for actions for breach of privacy, breach of confidence and similar media torts, as well as for libel and slander. The application to a defendant of any relevant system of regulation of standards enforcement which is contained in or recognised by statute and good internal governance in relation to the sourcing of stories should be relevant to the decisions reached in relation to such damages.
Leveson Inquiry, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · 29 Nov 2012 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:
- However, section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which would have provided the accompanying costs incentive for publishers to join a recognised regulator, was never commenced and was repealed by section 50 of the Media Act 2024 on 24 July 2024 (Media Act 2024, legislation.gov.uk).
- The exemplary damages provisions remain technically in force but their practical effect is limited without the costs incentive that was intended to accompany them.
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government
Sections 34-42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 were commenced on 3 November 2015, providing for exemplary damages against publishers not belonging to a recognised regulatory body. However, the practical effect is limited because Section 40 (the costs incentive for joining a recognised regulator) was repealed by the Media Act 2024 without ever being commenced. Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/section/34
UK Government · 29 Nov 2012 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 3 Nov 2015 · UK Parliament Sections 34-42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 were commenced on 3 November 2015, providing for exemplary damages against publishers not belonging to a recognised regulator. However this provision is largely toothless in practice because Section 40 (costs incentive) was repealed without ever being commenced, removing the financial pressure for publishers to join a recognised regulator. View source → Reasonable Progress
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.