The Repetition Rule in UK Defamation: Lessons from Monir v Wood

The repetition rule is one of the most important principles in UK defamation law. It prevents defendants from defending a defamatory statement by showing someone else said it first. Monir v Wood [2018] EWHC 3525 (QB) provides a modern illustration.

What Is the Repetition Rule?

Established in Shah v Standard Chartered Bank [1999] QB 241, the rule provides that repeating a defamatory allegation makes you liable as if you made it yourself. You cannot say "I was only reporting what X told me." To rely on the truth defence, you must prove the underlying allegation is true — not merely that the rumour exists.

The Facts of Monir v Wood

The defendant published statements repeating allegations made by others about a property developer's business practices. When sued, Wood argued he was merely reporting what others had said. The Court rejected this, applying the repetition rule — Wood had republished the allegations as his own and was liable.

How the Rule Works in Practice

• Reporting allegations: "A told me that B is a fraudster" makes you liable for alleging B is a fraudster. To rely on truth, you must prove B is a fraudster
• Social media sharing: Retweeting or sharing a defamatory post makes you liable. This applies to all platforms
• Journalism: Journalists cannot escape liability by attributing to sources. They need truth or public interest
• Qualifying phrases don't help: "Allegedly," "reportedly," "I've been told" do not provide protection

Exceptions and Nuances

• Neutral reportage: Balanced reporting of a public dispute may be protected if the journalist doesn't adopt either side's allegations
• [Qualified privilege](/blog/qualified-privilege-defence-uk): Fair and accurate reports of court proceedings and parliamentary debates are protected
• [Absolute privilege](/blog/absolute-privilege-defamation-uk): Statements in parliamentary or judicial proceedings are completely protected
• The meaning matters: If the reasonable reader would understand the statement as merely reporting that an allegation was made (not endorsing it), the defamatory sting may differ

The Repetition Rule Online

The rule has particular significance in the digital age. Every share of a defamatory post is a fresh publication — the sharer cannot defend by saying "I didn't write it." This applies to:

• Retweeting defamatory posts on X (Twitter)
• Sharing defamatory Facebook posts or Instagram stories
• Forwarding defamatory WhatsApp messages
• Creating TikTok duets or stitches with defamatory videos

Practical Implications

1. Think before sharing: Before retweeting content with serious allegations, consider whether you could defend a defamation claim
2. Attribution is not a defence: "According to sources" or "it is alleged" does not protect you
3. Claimants can choose targets: If an allegation has been widely repeated, the claimant can strategically choose which republisher to sue
4. Seek advice before reporting allegations: Legal advice can help you discuss others' allegations without personal liability

Related reading: Defamation Act 2013 explained | Social media liability | Honest opinion defence