Let's duel at dawn! ... The history of defamation takes most people by surprise, but makes sense when you work as a defamation lawyer.

Doing this job, you come to realise that it's not so much about money for the injured party. It's about their reputation being vindicated.

The evolution of how society deals with false statements that damages a person's reputation has many twists and turns. But one linkage is especially thought-provoking.

In the past, the duel was seen as a way to restore a person's honour if it was believed that their reputation had been damaged by false statements.

As society progressed, the use of duels as a means of resolving defamation cases was phased out and replaced with more legal forms of redress.

In 1613, King James I issued a royal edict against duelling, and this was reinforced by a Star Chamber decree in the following year.

From that point on, courts waged a continuous hostility to the duel in all its forms. They refused to regard it as in any way an affair of honour, but held it to be an unlawful assembly in an aggravated form.

The creation of the tort of written defamation was a way to address non-political, non-criminal libels.

It was a solution to the question of how to restrain these types of libels, when the vindication of the duel was no longer an option.

We often overlook the historical context of our laws, as we navigate a rapidly-changing landscape. But it helps to better understand human nature, if we learn about where our laws have come from.