Offer of Amends After the 2026 Act

The offer of amends is the Defamation Act’s exit for a publisher who cannot defend what was published. Sections 22 and 23 of the Defamation Act 2009, as amended by the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 from 1 March 2026, let a publisher offer a correction and apology with the same or similar prominence as the original, together with compensation and costs, and turn that offer into a defence if the claimant refuses it. The 2026 Act tightened the prominence rule, narrowed the ground on which the defence is lost, and made conduct after the offer relevant to costs. This guide explains the mechanics as they now stand and the judgment calls on each side: when a publisher should make the offer and when a claimant should accept it.

1. What an Offer of Amends Is: Section 22

Under section 22 a person who has published a statement that is alleged to be defamatory may make an offer to make amends. The offer is an offer to do three things: to publish a correction of the statement and an apology, which since 1 March 2026 must have the same or similar prominence as the original; to pay compensation to the claimant; and to pay the claimant’s costs. The compensation and costs are as agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, as determined by the court. The offer is made in writing and it is made as a package: a publisher cannot offer the correction without the compensation, or the compensation without the correction. That is deliberate. The section is designed to give a claimant the three things a trial would give, vindication, money and costs, without the trial, and to penalise a claimant who turns that down.

2. Timing: Before the Defence Is Delivered

The offer must be made before the defence is delivered. It can be made in reply to the claimant’s solicitor’s letter, before any proceedings exist, or after proceedings issue and up to the delivery of the defence, but not afterwards. The rule has a practical logic. A publisher who waits until the claim is fully pleaded has put the claimant to the cost of drafting it, and the Act wants the decision made earlier than that. For most publishers the right moment is the reply to the letter, for three reasons: the claimant’s costs are lowest, the correction reaches the original audience while the statement is still fresh, and the publisher has not yet been forced to commit to a defence that may not survive scrutiny. The first week after the letter arrives, and the checks that come before any offer, are set out in received a defamation solicitor’s letter: what now.

3. Same or Similar Prominence

Before the 2026 Act, a correction tucked into a corner could technically satisfy an offer of amends. Since 1 March 2026 the correction and apology must have the same or similar prominence as the original statement. What that means depends on the medium. For a Facebook or Instagram post it means a post from the same account, visible to the same audience, in the same format rather than a comment or a story that disappears. For a review it means a correction on the review platform where the original sits. For an online article it means a correction placed and presented comparably to the article, not a note at the foot of a page nobody revisits. For a statement made at a meeting it means a correction to the same people. A correction repairs reputation only if it reaches the readers of the allegation, and a court will look at where the correction went, not just that one was published.

4. Compensation and Costs: Agreed or Determined by the Court

The offer does not have to name a figure. It offers compensation and costs as agreed or, failing agreement, as determined by the court. In practice the parties negotiate: the publisher proposes the correction wording and placement and a sum, the claimant responds, and the figure is settled against the same matters the court would weigh under section 31, including the gravity of the allegation, the means and extent of publication, and the fact of the offer itself. If the parties agree the correction but not the money, the court determines the compensation and the costs on a summary basis without a trial of liability. The Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in defamation is €75,000, so an offer made in a Circuit Court matter is being valued within that ceiling. There is no issue of liability left; the hearing is confined to what the correction, apology and compensation should be.

5. If the Offer Is Accepted

Acceptance ends the argument about liability. What remains is the wording and placement of the correction and apology, and the amount of compensation and costs, each to be agreed or determined. For the claimant that is the whole claim resolved, usually within weeks rather than years, with a public correction that carries the same prominence as the words complained of. For the publisher it is a known cost, a correction it controls the wording of within the limits of the Act, and no finding of liability against it at a trial. The detail is where accepted offers go wrong: a correction that is vague, or that is published once and removed, invites further dispute. The correction should state plainly that the allegation was false and withdrawn.

6. If the Offer Is Refused: the Section 23 Defence

If the claimant does not accept the offer, section 23 makes the fact that it was made a defence to the claim. The 2026 Act narrowed the ground on which that defence is lost. It is now lost only where the publisher knew or was reckless as to whether the statement was false and defamatory, and that is for the claimant to prove. Carelessness is not enough. A publisher who honestly, if wrongly, believed the statement was true, made the offer promptly and in proper form, and was refused, has a defence to the claim. That changes the arithmetic for the claimant considerably: refusing a reasonable offer and proceeding to trial means winning only if the publisher’s state of mind can be shown to have been knowing or reckless, which is a high bar on evidence the claimant rarely holds. Every other defence in the Act, and the facts each needs, is in defences to defamation: truth, honest opinion and privilege.

7. Conduct After the Offer and Costs

The publisher’s conduct after the offer is relevant to costs. A publisher who makes the offer and then drags its feet on the correction, publishes it with less prominence than offered, or repeats the allegation elsewhere, has undermined the offer and the court can reflect that in costs. Equally, a claimant who refuses a proper offer and then recovers no more at trial than the offer would have delivered is exposed on costs. Court proceedings carry a risk of being ordered to pay the other side’s costs if the claim fails, and the offer of amends is one of the mechanisms, alongside a lodgment, that shifts that risk. Both sides should assume the correspondence about the offer will be read by the judge deciding costs, and write it accordingly.

8. Offer of Amends or Section 24 Apology?

The two are often confused. An apology under section 24 is not an admission of liability, and the court takes it into account on damages under section 31. It costs the publisher nothing in the liability sense, it involves no compensation, and it is not a defence. It suits a publisher who has a substantive defence but wants to reduce the temperature and the damages exposure, or who wants to put a matter to rest without conceding anything. An offer of amends is the formal package under sections 22 and 23: correction and apology with the same or similar prominence, compensation, costs, before the defence is delivered, and a defence if refused. It suits a publisher with no defence worth running. The choice turns on the evidence. If the facts can be proved true or the words were plainly opinion, apologise under section 24 if at all and defend. If they cannot, make the offer early and in full.

9. When to Make One, When to Accept One

For the publisher, the offer should be made when the honest assessment is that no defence has evidence behind it, the statement identifies the claimant and reached people beyond the claimant, and the cost of a trial would exceed the cost of a correction and a negotiated sum. It should be made promptly, in writing, with the correction wording and placement proposed, and it should be followed through to the letter. For the claimant, the offer should be accepted when the correction is real, with the same prominence as the original and in terms that say the allegation was false, and the compensation can be agreed or left to the court. It should be refused only where the claimant holds evidence that the publisher knew the statement was false or was reckless, because that is the only route past the section 23 defence. We advise publishers on making offers and claimants on answering them, never both sides of the same dispute. The Defamation Claim Checker runs the elements and the likely defences from your answers, and the defence side as a whole is on our page on defending a defamation claim.