Defamation in Cyprus: the Claim, the Defences and the One Year Limit

Reputation cases arrive angrier than any other kind of civil dispute, on both sides of the file. The post that named a business as a fraud, the message in the community group, the review that crossed from opinion into invention, the letter sent to an employer. The law that decides them is not a vague balancing of feelings: it is a set of sections in the Civil Wrongs Law, Cap. 148, drafted with unusual precision, and the case is usually won or lost on which side has read them more carefully.

This guide is written for both ends of the problem: the person whose name has been damaged, and the person who has received a letter accusing them of defamation.

What counts as defamatory

Section 17(1) defines the wrong by its effect. Matter is defamatory if it imputes a crime to another; imputes misconduct in a public office; naturally tends to injure or prejudice another's reputation in their profession, trade, business, employment or office; is likely to expose another to general hatred, contempt or ridicule; or is likely to cause another to be shunned or avoided. The medium does not matter: the section reaches print, writing, images, gestures, spoken words and any other means, which is why it applies to a social media post as naturally as to a newspaper column.

Section 17(2) removes the three excuses everyone reaches for first. Liability is not reduced merely because the statement was a repetition of what others were saying, because the publisher named the source, or because the publisher believed it to be true. "I only shared it" is not a defence; truth, properly proved, is.

Publication has its own definition in section 18, and it is narrower and wider than people expect. The defamatory meaning must come, or be likely to come, to the knowledge of at least one person other than the person defamed or the publisher's spouse: an insult delivered only to your face is not publication. But an open letter or a postcard counts as publication even if sent to the person defamed, because others can read it on the way.

The defences, in the order they are actually run

Truth. Under section 19(α) it is a defence that the publication was true. The section is practical about multiple accusations: where two or more distinct charges were made, the defence does not fail merely because not every one is proved true, if what remains unproved does not materially injure the reputation in the light of what was proved. The burden of proving truth sits on the defendant, which is the single most important fact in these cases: the claimant does not prove falsity.

Fair comment. Under section 19(β) it is a defence that the publication was fair comment on a matter of public interest. Where the publication mixes fact and opinion, the comment survives if it is fair on the facts that are proved. The defence fails if the claimant shows the publication was not made in good faith, and the anatomy of good faith is in section 21(2): comment that misstates its facts loses its shelter.

Privilege. Some occasions are protected absolutely under section 20: among them, what is said in judicial proceedings by a judge, advocate, witness or party, and the official documents and proceedings the section lists, with fair reports of them protected as it provides. Other occasions are protected by qualified privilege under section 21, if made in good faith: the publication made under a legal, moral or social duty to a person with a corresponding interest, the protection of one's own legitimate interest addressed to a person with a duty to protect it, the censure of an employer about an employee's conduct, and the complaint to a person with authority over the person complained of. The proviso is the boundary: the publication must not exceed, in extent or in substance, what the occasion reasonably requires. A complaint to the regulator is one thing; the same text posted publicly is another.

The innocent publisher. Under section 22, a person who published innocently may make a formal offer of amends. Accepted and honoured, it ends the matter against that publisher. Refused, it becomes a defence if the publication really was innocent and the offer was made as soon as practicable. It is the section that decides many internet cases quietly, and it rewards the defendant who moves fast and formally.

Damages, and what reduces them

Damage to reputation is the gist of the claim, and the award is assessed on the facts: the reach of the publication, its persistence, who read it, and what it cost. What a defendant can prove in mitigation is listed in section 23, on reasonable notice: an apology made or offered before or promptly after the action began; compensation already recovered for a publication to the same effect; the claimant's generally bad reputation in the very trait the publication attacked; and provocation by the claimant. For licensed newspapers, section 24 adds a special defence built on a payment into court, absence of actual malice and gross negligence, and a full apology.

Where the publication continues, taking it down matters more than pricing it. The court's power under section 32 of the Courts of Justice Law 14/1960 to grant an interlocutory injunction is available on its usual conditions, and in reputation cases the practical remedy is often the order and the apology, with damages following the proof.

The business variant: injurious falsehood

Not every damaging lie is defamation. A false statement about your goods, your title to property, or your business may not make anyone think worse of you personally, and yet empty the shop. Section 25 covers it: injurious falsehood is the malicious publication of a false statement concerning another's profession, trade, business, employment or office, another's goods, or another's title. Special damage is the ordinary requirement, with two exceptions that cover most commercial cases: where the words are calculated to cause pecuniary loss and are published in writing or other permanent form, and where they are calculated to cause pecuniary loss in respect of an office, profession or business carried on at the time. Malice must be proved, which is the element that separates this claim from a robust competitive comparison.

One year, and why it changes everything

Under section 6(4) of the Limitation of Actions Law 66(I)/2012, an action for defamation or malicious falsehood must be brought within one year from the completion of the cause of action. It is the shortest period on the civil side, and it is the reason a reputation complaint cannot wait for the right mood: the letter, the offer-of-amends decision and the issue of proceedings all have to fit inside it. Our limitation calculator covers the periods side by side.

If you are the one accused

Do not reply in the first hour, and do not delete anything: the record of what was published, to whom and for how long is as important to your defence as to their claim. The questions that decide your position are the statute's: was it true, and can that be proved; was it comment on proved facts; was the occasion privileged and was the reach proportionate to it; and is a prompt, formal offer of amends under section 22 the exit. An early answer that engages those questions properly usually costs less than a fortnight of correspondence written in anger.

What to send us

The publication itself, captured, with the date and where it appeared: screenshots with the address visible, the letter, the recording. Who saw it, so far as known, and what has already happened because of it: the cancelled contract, the call from the employer, the messages. Any exchange with the publisher. And the date it first appeared, because the year runs from then.

Questions we are asked

Related reading

This work sits within our litigation practice. The letter that opens a claim properly is in the letter before action, the deadlines sit side by side in the limitation calculator, and where the falsehood is aimed at recovering money rather than reputation, see fraud and asset recovery.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and their application can change, and individual circumstances differ. For advice on your own matter, contact Klitos Platis at klitos@kleanthousplatis.com or telephone +357 22 680 330.

Klitos Platis

Advocate, Partner

Kleanthous & Platis LLC, Nicosia · Published 22 August 2026