Offer to make amends

Offer to Make Amends (May 2025 update)

Defamation law in England and Wales allows for a special procedure known as an to make amends. This mechanism, set out in sections 2–4 of the Defamation Act 1996, enables a defendant to formally admit liability for a defamatory publication and make amends to the wronged party at an early stage.If you believe your reputation has been harmed by false allegations, our Defamation and Libel solicitors can advise on the appropriate course of action, including whether an offer of amends may be suitable. See our main Defamation page and Contact us today.

In essence, the defendant offers to correct the false statement, apologise to the claimant, and pay compensation and legal costs, instead of fighting the claim at trial. This “hands-up” approach is particularly useful when the defendant recognises they made an honest mistake or lacks a viable defence, allowing the matter to be settled swiftly and with dignity. Importantly, the offer of amends regime remains in force under current law (unaffected by the Defamation Act 2013 reforms), and it continues to be a key option for resolving libel and slander cases in 2025 and beyond.

What is an Offer to Make Amends?

An offer of amends is a statutory settlement offer in defamation proceedings whereby the defendant agrees to make reparations for a defamatory statement. By invoking this procedure, the defendant effectively admits that the statement in question is defamatory and false and signals their willingness to remedy the harm caused. The framework is established by the Defamation Act 1996, which prescribes how the offer must be made and the legal effects if it is accepted or refused.

Under this regime, the defendant’s offer is comprehensive: it must include a proposal to do all of the following:

• Publish a correction and apology: provide a suitable correction of the defamatory statement and a sufficient apology to the claimant (the “aggrieved party”). The apology’s form and prominence should genuinely address the harm done to the claimant’s reputation.
• Disseminate the apology reasonably: ensure the correction/apology is published in a manner that is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances, aiming to reach a similar audience that saw the original defamatory publication.
• Pay compensation and cost: offer to pay an agreed amount of damages to compensate the claimant (or have the amount determined by the court if not agreed), and cover the claimant’s reasonable legal costs.

Crucially, an offer of amends must be made in writing and must explicitly state that it is an offer to make amends under Section 2 of the Defamation Act 1996. The offer can be a general offer (addressing the entire defamatory publication) or a qualified offer limited to a particular defamatory meaning that the defendant accepts the publication conveyed. In a qualified offer, the defendant specifies the exact meaning they concede was defamatory,for example, clarifying which allegation in a multi-allegation article they are apologising for. This allows a defendant who disputes some interpretations of the statement to nonetheless apologise for the harm of a certain defamatory meaning. However, if the claimant believes the defamation was more severe or broader than the meaning conceded, they may decide not to accept a limited offer.

When and How to Make an Offer to make Amends

The law requires that any offer of amends be made before the defendant has served a Defence in the court proceedings. In practice, defendants will usually initiate an offer of amends early, often upon receiving a letter of claim or shortly after a claim is issued, but before engaging in formal litigation steps. Once a Defence (a formal court document responding to the allegations) has been filed, it is too late to use the statutory offer of amends procedure.

Making an offer involves sending a written offer letter to the claimant (or their solicitors) clearly headed or stated to be an “Offer of Amends under Section 2 of the Defamation Act 1996.” The letter should outline the defamatory statement or statements at issue and, if it is a qualified offer, the defamatory meaning that the defendant is prepared to apologise for. It should then set forth the defendant’s proposals for correction, apology, and compensation as required. Typically, the defendant will indicate they are prepared to publish an apology or retraction (sometimes even enclosing a draft wording), and to pay damages and reasonable legal costs, either to be negotiated or assessed by the court if no agreement is reached.

Acceptance or rejection: The claimant is not obliged to accept an offer of amends, but they should respond within a “reasonable time.” There is no fixed period defined in the statute, but in practice a prompt response is expected. If the claimant accepts, the matter will proceed to the remedial phase (discussed below). If the claimant fails to respond or explicitly rejects the offer, the offer is deemed not accepted, and different consequences follow (explained in a later section).

Note: By making an offer of amends, a defendant is effectively conceding the essence of the claim (that the publication is defamatory and has caused serious harm to the claimant’s reputation). In fact, courts have noted that the statutory “serious harm” requirement introduced by the Defamation Act 2013 is essentially waived or conceded when an offer of amends is made. Defendants who genuinely believe the allegation did not seriously harm the claimant (or is trivial) should carefully consider whether to use this procedure or instead contest the claim on that basis. Once an offer is made and accepted, the defendant cannot later argue the claim lacks seriousness or defend on the merits, liability is admitted.

Acceptance of an Offer of to make Amends: Consequences

When a claimant accepts an offer of amends, the defamation claim does not proceed to a trial on liability. Instead, the focus shifts to implementing the offer and determining the appropriate remedy. Legally, acceptance of the offer creates a binding agreement (under the framework of the Act) that the defendant will fulfill the terms of the offer, and the claimant in turn waives the right to continue suing on the libel/slander. In other words, the claimant cannot pursue the defamation proceedings further in court regarding that publication, except to enforce the agreed remedial steps.

After acceptance, several steps occur:

• Negotiating the Apology and Correction: The parties will agree on the wording, form, and prominence of the correction and apology. It is important that the apology is satisfactory to the claimant in restoring their reputation, and published in a venue or manner comparable to the original publication (for example, an apology in the same newspaper section or a statement on the same website). The precise terms of the apology/correction are often negotiated in detail between the lawyers.
• Determining Damages and Costs: The parties will attempt to agree on the amount of compensation (damages) the defendant should pay, and the amount of the claimant’s legal costs to be covered. In many cases, an agreement can be reached, especially since both sides have an incentive to avoid further litigation – the claimant typically wants fair but prompt compensation, and the defendant seeks to cap their liability.
• Court assessment if no agreement: If the parties cannot reach an agreement on the compensation or any other aspect of the offer (for instance, if they disagree on what constitutes a sufficient apology or the sum of damages), either party may apply to the High Court to decide those issues. The court can then conduct a hearing to assess damages and/or settle the content and mode of the apology, as necessary. The defendant, in the meantime, may choose to publish a unilateral apology even before the court hearing – demonstrating their good faith in making amends. (Such an apology can help mitigate ongoing damage to the claimant’s reputation, though the final adequacy of that apology and the damages still rest with the court if contested.)

During a court assessment of damages under an accepted offer of amends, no question of the defendant’s liability is at issue, that has been admitted. The judge’s task is solely to determine the appropriate amount of damages (and possibly to rule on costs or disputed apology wording). The court approaches this by considering what level of harm the publication caused and then giving the defendant credit for having apologised and offered amends at an early stage. We discuss the typical approach to calculating damages in the next section.

Refusal of an Offer: The Offer to make Amends Defence

If the claimant does not accept the offer of amends, the defendant is not off the hook immediately, but the defendant does acquire a powerful legal defence moving forward. Under Section 4 of the Defamation Act 1996, if an offer to make amends is refused (or not accepted within a reasonable time), the defendant can invoke the offer of amends defence in any subsequent defamation trial . This operates as a complete defence to the claim, meaning the court will dismiss the defamation action, unless the claimant can prove that the defendant acted with malice in publishing the statement .

In practice, this means that once a valid offer of amends has been made and refused, the claimant faces a high hurdle to continue litigation. To defeat the offer of amends defence, the claimant must show that the defendant published the defamatory statement maliciously, i.e. knowing it was false or with a reckless disregard for the truth. It is not sufficient to show that the defendant was merely negligent or careless in checking the facts. The law requires proof of a deliberate or improper motive on the part of the defendant (for example, evidence that the defendant knew the allegation was untrue or was indifferent to its truth/falsity, perhaps due to a personal vendetta). If the claimant cannot prove malice, the defendant will succeed in having the case dismissed by virtue of the unaccepted offer of amends.

This aspect of the law encourages defendants to make genuine amends promptly, and it also incentivises claimants to accept reasonable offers. A claimant who unreasonably refuses an offer of amends (for instance, perhaps hoping to get a higher damages award at trial) risks ending up with no victory in court at all – unless they can meet the stringent malice test. In other words, once an innocent (non-malicious) defendant offers to right the wrong, the law shields that defendant from further liability if the olive branch is rejected . Claimants should therefore carefully evaluate an offer of amends when it is made; if the offer appears to be sincere, proportional and backed by an ability to pay the proposed compensation, accepting it may often be the wiser course to achieve vindication.

Damages and Discounts under the Offer to make Amends

One of the key benefits to a defendant making an offer of amends is the reduction in damages that usually follows. When a court assesses libel or slander damages in the context of an accepted offer of amends, it will typically apply a substantial discount to what the damages would have been after a full trial. This discount reflects the various mitigating factors resulting from the defendant’s conduct, notably the prompt apology, the public retraction, and the avoidance of a protracted trial which might otherwise amplify the harm.

The generally accepted approach of the court is a two-stage calculation :

• Calculate baseline damages: First, the judge estimates the amount of damages that would have been awarded if the case had gone to full trial on the defamatory meaning in question, assuming the defendant had done nothing to aggravate the injury to the claimant’s feelings but also had not mitigated the damage. In other words, this is the hypothetical compensation for the libel if liability were proven in the usual way, taking into account the gravity of the allegation and its impact, but without any apology or wrongdoing beyond the publication itself.
• Apply a discount for mitigation: Second, the judge reduces that figure to reflect the mitigating effect of the defendant’s offer and apology. Because the defendant has acknowledged the wrong and attempted to make amends, the law allows a reduction in the damages to ensure the defendant benefits from these actions . The rationale is that an early apology and offer of redress lessen the lasting damage to the claimant’s reputation and feelings, compared to a scenario where the claimant had to fight to be vindicated
• Damages are assessed as of the date of the assessment (typically at or near the time of judgment), not the date of publication. This means if the defendant moved quickly to apologise and set the record straight, the claimant’s reputation may have been restored more swiftly, and thus the harm (by the time of assessment) is less than it would have been without any amends.

In terms of the size of the discount, courts have broad discretion but there are some benchmarks. It is common for the reduction to be significant, often on the order of 30% to 50% off the baseline damages . Indeed, case law indicates that in many instances judges have awarded one-third to one-half off to defendants using the offer of amends. For example, in one High Court case a 50% reduction was applied (cutting the libel damages from £150,000 to £75,000) because the defendant’s offer and apology were prompt and comprehensive. In other reported cases involving media defendants, discounts of around 35% and 40% have been given, depending on the speed and sincerity of the apology. The maximum discount is typically 50%, reserved for the most prompt and unequivocal amends; a defendant cannot expect to completely escape damages, but they can halve the potential award in the best-case scenario.

However, the exact percentage is not automatic. The judge will weigh all the circumstances. If, for instance, the defendant delayed unreasonably in apologising or offered a half-hearted correction, the court may grant a smaller discount. In one example, The Guardian newspaper received only a 35% discount (instead of 50%) because of an “unaccountable delay” in acknowledging its mistake and a casual attitude in its apology. By contrast, a very swift apology or a generous offer might secure a higher reduction (e.g. 40–50%). Ultimately, the court’s goal is to incentivise defendants to behave responsibly once a defamatory error is known, while still ensuring the claimant receives fair compensation commensurate with the remaining harm.

Benefits and Strategic Considerations

The offer of amends regime provides significant benefits to both sides in a defamation dispute, but it also comes with strategic considerations:

For Defendants (Publishers): An offer of amends is an opportunity to limit liability and costs. By admitting the mistake early, a defendant can avoid protracted litigation and the legal fees associated with a full trial (which can be very high in defamation cases). The damages discount (often up to 50%) is a strong incentive – it rewards the defendant for taking responsibility. Additionally, using this procedure can help repair the defendant’s public image; a prompt apology may reduce public ill-will and demonstrate professionalism and integrity. It’s often used by media organisations, businesses, or individuals who realise they have no solid defence (e.g. the allegation is false and not defensible) and wish to “do the right thing” while containing the fallout. However, defendants must be prepared to follow through with a sincere correction and adequate compensation. Once an offer is made and accepted, the defendant has effectively conceded the case, so they cannot later raise defences like truth or qualified privilege. Therefore, a defendant will typically make an offer of amends only when confident that contesting the claim isn’t viable or desirable. If a defendant believes the claim is false or trivial (no serious harm), they might opt to fight or seek strike-out instead; but if the writing is on the wall, the offer of amends is often the wisest course.

For Claimants (Victims of Defamation): An offer of amends, if genuine and sufficient, can provide swift vindication. The claimant receives an apology or correction which clears their name publicly, and they obtain compensation without the delay and stress of a trial. This can be especially valuable when restoring reputation quickly is a priority (for example, for a professional or public figure who cannot wait years to clear an accusation). Accepting a reasonable offer also avoids the risk inherent in litigation, even a strong defamation case can be complex, and going to trial might result in an uncertain outcome or higher legal costs that aren’t fully recouped.