The Defamation Act 2013 and CPR 3.4 and 24:a sting in causation’s tail

Examines the Court of Appeal judgment in Tesla Motors Ltd v BBC on whether the claim that a review of a vehicle on the BBC "Top Gear" programme constituted malicious falsehood should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2) on the ground there was insufficient evidence to show that any loss in revenue suffered by the manufacturer was attributable to the review. Considers the implications of the decision for commercial claimants seeking to establish that defamation caused them "serious harm", which, pursuant to the Defamation Act 2013 s.1(2), requires evidence of actual or likely serious financial loss.

Logics of marginalisation in health and social care reform:integration, choice, and provider-blind provision

The period 2010–2013 was a time of far-reaching structural reforms of the National Health Service in England. Of particular interest in this paper is the way in which radical critiques of the reform process were marginalised by pragmatic concerns about how to maintain the market-competition thrust of the reforms while avoiding potential fragmentation. We draw on the Essex school of political discourse theory and develop a ‘nodal’ analytical framework to argue that widespread and repeated appeals to a narrative of choice-based integrated care served to take the fragmentation ‘sting’ out of radical critiques of the pro-competition reform process. This served to marginalise alternative visions of health and social care, and to pre-empt the contestation of a key norm in the provision of health care that is closely associated with the notions of ‘any willing provider’ and ‘any qualified provider’: provider-blind provision.