One of the few places where the UK is more litigious than the United States is in its infamously broad libel laws, which put the burden of the proof on the defendant to prove the truth of a statement, resulting in multiple instances of “libel tourism,” which we’ve noted previously: e.g., Aug. 1, Jan. 6, 2004, and, most notably, by Saudi businessmen hoping to preclude investigations into their relationship with terrorists, Oct. 26, 2003. (In contrast, in the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that, to avoid “chilling effects” on First Amendment speech rights, a public-figure plaintiff must prove an intentional or reckless falsehood.) Britain’s top court sided with the Wall Street Journal Europe and created a legal defense whereby a speaker who “behave[s] fairly and responsibly” in reporting on a matter of public importance will not be liable for defamatory statements. (Aaron O. Patrick, “U.K. Court Backs WSJE in Libel Ruling”, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 11; Lattman). This moves the UK much closer to the US in its libel law.
I am not the first to note that, while academics and courts of all stripes recognize the potential chilling effects of litigation on First Amendment rights, courts have been reluctant to acknowledge the chilling effects of litigation on other rights and economically productive activity.