Insights

Litigating Against Public Figures or Governments in England and Wales: What to Expect

23rd Oct 2025

Executive summary

Pick your forum deliberately. Reputation and privacy disputes tend to sit in the King’s Bench Division’s Media and Communications List, while challenges to governmental acts run in the Administrative Court by way of judicial review. Each forum has different timetables, evidential burdens, and costs exposure.
Substance first. Defamation must clear the statutory serious harm threshold. Privacy depends on a reasonable expectation of privacy, balanced against freedom of expression. Public law claims ride on unlawfulness grounds and speed.
Expect hard-edged procedure. Pre-action protocols, limitation traps, and early applications like interim injunctions, Norwich Pharmacal or Bankers Trust disclosure, and security for costs can decide outcomes before trial.
States are not always immune. The State Immunity Act has exceptions. Recent Court of Appeal authority held that alleged state spyware use causing psychiatric injury in the UK could be sued here.
Plan for reputation and data spinoffs. Align litigation with media, online platform, and data rights strategies, including subject access requests and harassment injunctions where needed.

The landscape: when your opponent is a public figure or a public body

Disputes with public figures and government actors engage constitutional and policy interests that change the way English courts manage risk, speed, and publicity. For media-adjacent claims, cases are typically issued in the Media and Communications List of the King’s Bench Division, which concentrates judicial expertise in defamation, privacy, data misuse, and related torts.

Government decision-making is challenged by judicial review in the Administrative Court. The procedure is front-loaded, fast, and permission-gated. Applicants must act promptly and within a short time limit, supported by detailed evidence and legal grounds. Protective costs orders may be available in suitable public interest cases to manage downside risk.

Article 10 freedom of expression and Article 8 privacy rights under the Human Rights Act shape interim relief and final outcomes. Courts must pay particular regard to free speech when considering relief that affects expression, especially at the interim stage.

Finally, state defendants sometimes seek closed material procedures if national security material is engaged. That specialist regime sits under the Justice and Security Act 2013 and CPR Part 82. It affects how evidence is handled and who can see it.

2) Substance first: matching claim to forum

Defamation. A claimant must prove that the publication caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation within the meaning of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The Supreme Court in Lachaux v Independent Print confirmed this is a real-world threshold that requires evidence of impact, not a presumption. For family offices, that changes the economics. You will need a harm narrative grounded in circulation, audience, and consequences for counterparties or regulators.

Privacy and misuse of private information. The modern tort asks first whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information. If yes, the court balances the claimant’s Article 8 rights against the defendant’s Article 10 rights. The House of Lords in Campbell v MGN recognised that publishing medical treatment details and accompanying images could breach privacy despite the claimant’s public profile. Expect the court to interrogate necessity, contribution to a debate of public interest, and proportionality.

Harassment. Where a hostile campaign crosses into a course of conduct causing alarm or distress, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides a civil cause of action and fast injunctive relief. Section 3 allows damages for anxiety and financial loss, plus interim orders to stop contact or publication pathways. This can be a practical tool alongside or instead of defamation, particularly against persistent online abuse.

Data protection. The UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 provide parallel routes for injunctive relief and compensation for material and non-material damage, including distress. Article 82 confirms a right to compensation against controllers and processors. In reputational crises, coordinated subject access requests can surface provenance, editorial trails, and sharing logs, subject to exemptions and proportionality. The Information Commissioner’s Office guidance sets out response times and the right of access framework.

Public law. Where the target is a minister, regulator, or council, the primary route is judicial review. The Administrative Court polices legality, rationality, and procedural fairness. Claims must be issued within three months and promptly. The Pre-Action Protocol requires an early letter before claim that sets out proposed grounds and remedies. In cases with a wider public interest and claimant of limited means, a protective costs order may cap liabilities.

States and state entities. Suing a foreign state triggers the State Immunity Act 1978. Important exceptions exist, including for personal injury caused by an act in the UK. In 2024 the Court of Appeal held in Shehabi v Kingdom of Bahrain that alleged remote installation of spyware on UK devices, causing psychiatric injury on discovery, could fall within the personal injury exception. The court treated the hacking as an act in the UK for immunity purposes. This is a significant signal for cyber-harms linked to state actors.

Which forum.

Media and reputation claims are typically issued in the Media and Communications List of the King’s Bench Division.
Government decision-making is challenged in the Administrative Court via judicial review.
Overlaps happen. For example, a family principal may run defamation or privacy claims while also pursuing public law relief against a department’s decision that relied on the same misinformation. Courts encourage procedural discipline and may sequence or transfer related matters.

Interim relief. Interim injunctions follow the American Cyanamid principles, refined for speech by section 12 of the Human Rights Act. The court will ask whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would suffice, and where the balance of convenience lies, while giving particular regard to free expression. This is a high-stakes phase that often shapes settlement.

3) Pre-action playbook: speed, evidence, pressure

Protocols and letters. In media and communications matters and in judicial review, specific pre-action protocols require structured correspondence and disclosure asks. Well-judged letters can secure corrections, takedowns, or undertakings before issue. Poor letters create exhibits for the other side.

Evidence build. Capture publication footprints, distribution analytics, and counterparties affected. For privacy and data misuse, pin down categories of private information and data flows. For public law, gather the record of decision, policy texts, and any equality or proportionality assessments.

Information orders. If a third party is “mixed up” in wrongdoing, Norwich Pharmacal orders can compel disclosure of identities or documents. If you need to trace assets or payment flows behind a campaign, Bankers Trust orders target banks or platforms for transactional information. These are targeted, court-supervised interventions that can flip information asymmetries early.

Data rights. Coordinate subject access requests across likely controllers. Done properly this surfaces audit trails and internal notes that can strengthen pleadings. The ICO guidance sets the framework and timelines, subject to exemptions for journalism, legal privilege, and manifestly unfounded or excessive requests.

ADR. Consider private resolution, early neutral evaluation, or mediation in parallel. For public bodies a reasoned protocol letter often unlocks constructive dialogue, particularly where a fix is operational rather than political.

4) Timing, limitation, and urgency

Calendar discipline wins cases. Defamation and malicious falsehood have a one-year limitation period from publication. Courts have limited discretion to disapply time bars, so treat the one-year date as hard. Where publications persist online, the single publication rule and republication analysis can be complex, which is another reason to get early specialist advice.

Judicial review claims must be lodged promptly and within three months, measured from the date of the decision. Pre-action protocol steps do not stop time. Build your record and draft grounds in parallel with dialogue.

Urgency often justifies interim relief. For privacy and harassment, without-notice injunctions may be available where notice would defeat the purpose. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act requires the court to scrutinise these applications closely where speech is affected. Prepare evidence and undertakings meticulously.

If the defendant is abroad, you may need permission to serve out under CPR Part 6 and PD 6B gateways. Post-Brexit, enforcement in the EU relies on national law and instruments like the 2005 Hague Convention, not Brussels Recast. Build cross-border strategy into your timetable. GOV.UK Justice+1

5) Costs, settlement levers, and risk control

Security for costs. High-value or offshore claimants can face security applications. Factor this into cash-flow and collateral planning. The rules live in CPR Part 25.

Part 36 offers. Thoughtful offers change the costs landscape. Be realistic and timely. Defendants who beat their own offers, or claimants who better their offers at trial, trigger powerful costs consequences.

Protective costs orders. In public law cases with genuine public importance, the court can cap adverse costs to enable meritorious claims. The Corner House guidance remains the touchstone, applied flexibly to modern contexts.

ATE and third-party funding. Media disputes often settle before trial, but interim skirmishes are expensive. Price adverse costs insurance early. If strategic disclosure is central, consider funding that front-loads those applications.

Outcome-shaping remedies. Beyond damages, corporate and personal claimants often value prompt corrections, takedowns, de-indexing, apology language, and non-contact undertakings. Tailor asks to commercial objectives and counterpart risk appetites.

6) Practical checklists for family offices

Before issue.

Fix objectives. Vindication, speed, or silence drive different tactics.
Lock evidence. Screenshots with timestamps, regulator correspondence, and counterpart emails.
Decide on information orders. Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust can be decisive early.
Map counterpart domiciles for service and enforcement. Post-Brexit, service and EU enforcement take longer and require planning.

At issue.

Choose the forum that matches the remedy you need.
Plan interim applications around section 12 HRA and American Cyanamid.
Cost the downside. Security for costs and Part 36 dynamics can bite.

After issue.

Manage comms with legal privilege in mind.
Use data rights tactically. Subject access requests can surface key facts, subject to exemptions.
Keep settlement options alive. Aim remedies at real-world outcomes, not just damages.

7) Governance and reputation integration

Effective litigation against public figures or governments is cross-functional. Your legal team, communications advisers, and compliance leads must work from a single playbook. Align messages to the claims you actually run. For example, if you rely on privacy, avoid public commentary that undermines a reasonable expectation of privacy. In public law challenges, keep arguments focused on legal error or process failure, not political disagreement. Document decision-making and escalation pathways so that disclosure risks are controlled. When third parties such as platforms, banks, or hosting providers hold critical data, build those relationships early to smooth compliance with court orders and to accelerate takedowns or de-indexing.

Finally, measure progress against business outcomes. A swift correction in a trade outlet that matters to counterparties can be more valuable than a long damages fight. Treat litigation as only one tool in a wider reputation and risk strategy.

If you are strategic legal advice in this area, do not hesitate to contact Linkilaw for a confidential consultation, and one of our specialists would be please to assist you.

Executive summary

Pick your forum deliberately. Reputation and privacy disputes tend to sit in the King’s Bench Division’s Media and Communications List, while challenges to governmental acts run in the Administrative Court by way of judicial review. Each forum has different timetables, evidential burdens, and costs exposure.
Substance first. Defamation must clear the statutory serious harm threshold. Privacy depends on a reasonable expectation of privacy, balanced against freedom of expression. Public law claims ride on unlawfulness grounds and speed.
Expect hard-edged procedure. Pre-action protocols, limitation traps, and early applications like interim injunctions, Norwich Pharmacal or Bankers Trust disclosure, and security for costs can decide outcomes before trial.
States are not always immune. The State Immunity Act has exceptions. Recent Court of Appeal authority held that alleged state spyware use causing psychiatric injury in the UK could be sued here.
Plan for reputation and data spinoffs. Align litigation with media, online platform, and data rights strategies, including subject access requests and harassment injunctions where needed.

The landscape: when your opponent is a public figure or a public body

Disputes with public figures and government actors engage constitutional and policy interests that change the way English courts manage risk, speed, and publicity. For media-adjacent claims, cases are typically issued in the Media and Communications List of the King’s Bench Division, which concentrates judicial expertise in defamation, privacy, data misuse, and related torts.

Government decision-making is challenged by judicial review in the Administrative Court. The procedure is front-loaded, fast, and permission-gated. Applicants must act promptly and within a short time limit, supported by detailed evidence and legal grounds. Protective costs orders may be available in suitable public interest cases to manage downside risk.

Article 10 freedom of expression and Article 8 privacy rights under the Human Rights Act shape interim relief and final outcomes. Courts must pay particular regard to free speech when considering relief that affects expression, especially at the interim stage.

Finally, state defendants sometimes seek closed material procedures if national security material is engaged. That specialist regime sits under the Justice and Security Act 2013 and CPR Part 82. It affects how evidence is handled and who can see it.

2) Substance first: matching claim to forum

Defamation. A claimant must prove that the publication caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation within the meaning of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The Supreme Court in Lachaux v Independent Print confirmed this is a real-world threshold that requires evidence of impact, not a presumption. For family offices, that changes the economics. You will need a harm narrative grounded in circulation, audience, and consequences for counterparties or regulators.

Privacy and misuse of private information. The modern tort asks first whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information. If yes, the court balances the claimant’s Article 8 rights against the defendant’s Article 10 rights. The House of Lords in Campbell v MGN recognised that publishing medical treatment details and accompanying images could breach privacy despite the claimant’s public profile. Expect the court to interrogate necessity, contribution to a debate of public interest, and proportionality.

Harassment. Where a hostile campaign crosses into a course of conduct causing alarm or distress, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides a civil cause of action and fast injunctive relief. Section 3 allows damages for anxiety and financial loss, plus interim orders to stop contact or publication pathways. This can be a practical tool alongside or instead of defamation, particularly against persistent online abuse.

Data protection. The UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 provide parallel routes for injunctive relief and compensation for material and non-material damage, including distress. Article 82 confirms a right to compensation against controllers and processors. In reputational crises, coordinated subject access requests can surface provenance, editorial trails, and sharing logs, subject to exemptions and proportionality. The Information Commissioner’s Office guidance sets out response times and the right of access framework.

Public law. Where the target is a minister, regulator, or council, the primary route is judicial review. The Administrative Court polices legality, rationality, and procedural fairness. Claims must be issued within three months and promptly. The Pre-Action Protocol requires an early letter before claim that sets out proposed grounds and remedies. In cases with a wider public interest and claimant of limited means, a protective costs order may cap liabilities.

States and state entities. Suing a foreign state triggers the State Immunity Act 1978. Important exceptions exist, including for personal injury caused by an act in the UK. In 2024 the Court of Appeal held in Shehabi v Kingdom of Bahrain that alleged remote installation of spyware on UK devices, causing psychiatric injury on discovery, could fall within the personal injury exception. The court treated the hacking as an act in the UK for immunity purposes. This is a significant signal for cyber-harms linked to state actors.

Which forum.

Media and reputation claims are typically issued in the Media and Communications List of the King’s Bench Division.
Government decision-making is challenged in the Administrative Court via judicial review.
Overlaps happen. For example, a family principal may run defamation or privacy claims while also pursuing public law relief against a department’s decision that relied on the same misinformation. Courts encourage procedural discipline and may sequence or transfer related matters.

Interim relief. Interim injunctions follow the American Cyanamid principles, refined for speech by section 12 of the Human Rights Act. The court will ask whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would suffice, and where the balance of convenience lies, while giving particular regard to free expression. This is a high-stakes phase that often shapes settlement.

3) Pre-action playbook: speed, evidence, pressure

Protocols and letters. In media and communications matters and in judicial review, specific pre-action protocols require structured correspondence and disclosure asks. Well-judged letters can secure corrections, takedowns, or undertakings before issue. Poor letters create exhibits for the other side.

Evidence build. Capture publication footprints, distribution analytics, and counterparties affected. For privacy and data misuse, pin down categories of private information and data flows. For public law, gather the record of decision, policy texts, and any equality or proportionality assessments.

Information orders. If a third party is “mixed up” in wrongdoing, Norwich Pharmacal orders can compel disclosure of identities or documents. If you need to trace assets or payment flows behind a campaign, Bankers Trust orders target banks or platforms for transactional information. These are targeted, court-supervised interventions that can flip information asymmetries early.

Data rights. Coordinate subject access requests across likely controllers. Done properly this surfaces audit trails and internal notes that can strengthen pleadings. The ICO guidance sets the framework and timelines, subject to exemptions for journalism, legal privilege, and manifestly unfounded or excessive requests.

ADR. Consider private resolution, early neutral evaluation, or mediation in parallel. For public bodies a reasoned protocol letter often unlocks constructive dialogue, particularly where a fix is operational rather than political.

4) Timing, limitation, and urgency

Calendar discipline wins cases. Defamation and malicious falsehood have a one-year limitation period from publication. Courts have limited discretion to disapply time bars, so treat the one-year date as hard. Where publications persist online, the single publication rule and republication analysis can be complex, which is another reason to get early specialist advice.

Judicial review claims must be lodged promptly and within three months, measured from the date of the decision. Pre-action protocol steps do not stop time. Build your record and draft grounds in parallel with dialogue.

Urgency often justifies interim relief. For privacy and harassment, without-notice injunctions may be available where notice would defeat the purpose. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act requires the court to scrutinise these applications closely where speech is affected. Prepare evidence and undertakings meticulously.

If the defendant is abroad, you may need permission to serve out under CPR Part 6 and PD 6B gateways. Post-Brexit, enforcement in the EU relies on national law and instruments like the 2005 Hague Convention, not Brussels Recast. Build cross-border strategy into your timetable. GOV.UK Justice+1

5) Costs, settlement levers, and risk control

Security for costs. High-value or offshore claimants can face security applications. Factor this into cash-flow and collateral planning. The rules live in CPR Part 25.

Part 36 offers. Thoughtful offers change the costs landscape. Be realistic and timely. Defendants who beat their own offers, or claimants who better their offers at trial, trigger powerful costs consequences.

Protective costs orders. In public law cases with genuine public importance, the court can cap adverse costs to enable meritorious claims. The Corner House guidance remains the touchstone, applied flexibly to modern contexts.

ATE and third-party funding. Media disputes often settle before trial, but interim skirmishes are expensive. Price adverse costs insurance early. If strategic disclosure is central, consider funding that front-loads those applications.

Outcome-shaping remedies. Beyond damages, corporate and personal claimants often value prompt corrections, takedowns, de-indexing, apology language, and non-contact undertakings. Tailor asks to commercial objectives and counterpart risk appetites.

6) Practical checklists for family offices

Before issue.

Fix objectives. Vindication, speed, or silence drive different tactics.
Lock evidence. Screenshots with timestamps, regulator correspondence, and counterpart emails.
Decide on information orders. Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust can be decisive early.
Map counterpart domiciles for service and enforcement. Post-Brexit, service and EU enforcement take longer and require planning.

At issue.

Choose the forum that matches the remedy you need.
Plan interim applications around section 12 HRA and American Cyanamid.
Cost the downside. Security for costs and Part 36 dynamics can bite.

After issue.

Manage comms with legal privilege in mind.
Use data rights tactically. Subject access requests can surface key facts, subject to exemptions.
Keep settlement options alive. Aim remedies at real-world outcomes, not just damages.

7) Governance and reputation integration

Effective litigation against public figures or governments is cross-functional. Your legal team, communications advisers, and compliance leads must work from a single playbook. Align messages to the claims you actually run. For example, if you rely on privacy, avoid public commentary that undermines a reasonable expectation of privacy. In public law challenges, keep arguments focused on legal error or process failure, not political disagreement. Document decision-making and escalation pathways so that disclosure risks are controlled. When third parties such as platforms, banks, or hosting providers hold critical data, build those relationships early to smooth compliance with court orders and to accelerate takedowns or de-indexing.

Finally, measure progress against business outcomes. A swift correction in a trade outlet that matters to counterparties can be more valuable than a long damages fight. Treat litigation as only one tool in a wider reputation and risk strategy.

If you are strategic legal advice in this area, do not hesitate to contact Linkilaw for a confidential consultation, and one of our specialists would be please to assist you.