text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Prime Minister - Clause 10 - Action against a person who was not the author, editor etc
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  MPs were considering the Defamation Bill[1]. The amendment rejected in this vote was:
  
  :Amendment 8, page 8, line 26, leave out from âcourtâ to end of line 28 and insertâ
  
  :â(a) is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the author, editor or publisher; and
  :(b) there is a prima facia case that the statement complained of is defamatory; and
  :(c) is satisfied that such person did not know that the statement was defamatory until a claim to that effect was made and did not reasonably believe that there was a good defence to any action brought upon it.â.
  
  
  This would have affected clause 10 of the Bill[2] which at the time of the vote stated:
  
  :''Action against a person who was not the author, editor etc''
  :1) A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for defamation brought against a person who was not the author, editor or
  publisher of the statement complained of unless the court is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the author, editor or publisher.
  
  :(2) In this section âauthorâ, âeditorâ and âpublisherâ have the same meaning as in [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/31/section/1 section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996]. 
  
  and had the amendment been passed it would have become:
  
  
  
  :''Action against a person who was not the author, editor etc''
  :1) A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for defamation brought against a person who was not the author, editor or
  publisher of the statement complained of unless the court
  
  :â(a) is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the author, editor or publisher; and
  :(b) there is a prima facia case that the statement complained of is defamatory; and
  :(c) is satisfied that such person did not know that the statement was defamatory until a claim to that effect was made and did not reasonably believe that there was a good defence to any action brought upon it.â.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ==
  * [1] [http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html Parliament's webpage on the Defamation Bill (now an Act)]
  * [2] [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0051/cbill_2012-20130051_en_2.htm#pb4-l1g10 Clause 10 of the Defamation Bill as at the time of the vote]
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  