Honor, Katie and Emma participated in the WS Society Summer Scholars programme during August 2025. This article summarises their research and presentation.
Introduction
The memoir, The Salt Path by Raynor Winn (real name Sally Walker) was published in 2018 to critical acclaim and commercial success. The story raised themes of homelessness, terminal illness, and resilience through a 630-mile trek along the South West Coast Path. The memoir was a huge success and sold more than two million copies, generating approximately £9.5 million in sales. The book was later adapted into a film starring Gillian Anderson, released in 2025.
However, following its cinematic adaptation, The Observer published an article which questioned the factual accuracy of several key claims in the memoir. The primary allegations include:
The Walkers’ homelessness stemmed from fraud rather than misfortune,
Tim Walker’s (“Moth”) medical diagnosis of corticobasal degeneration (CBD) was either inaccurate or misrepresented,
Identifiable individuals (such as a café owner in Mullion Cove) were portrayed in damaging and allegedly false terms.
Both Walker and Penguin Random House (PRH) deny these allegations. Nevertheless, the controversy has reignited legal debate over the honesty in memoirs, the responsibilities of publishers and filmmakers, and whether stronger safeguards should be imposed on media marketed as “true stories.” This article examines The Salt Path controversy through the lens of UK law, exploring key issues such as defamation, the misuse of private information, fraud and misrepresentation, medical ethics in publishing, advertising regulation, and publisher liability. It also considers whether industry reform is necessary.
Misuse of Private Information
One of the immediate legal risks connected to memoir writing is the misuse of private information. The modern tort of misuse of private information is derived from Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457.
The two-stage test subsequently developed asks:
Did the claimant have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
If so, is that expectation outweighed by the defendant’s Article 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression?
In order to ascertain whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, the court will consider many factors including; the claimant’s attributes, the nature of the activity, location, consent, the circumstances in which the information was obtained, and the impact of disclosure.
In memoirs, privacy disputes often arise when individuals are indirectly identifiable, despite disclaimers. McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714 confirmed that the truth in the information is irrelevant; what matters is whether the nature of the information is sufficiently private to engage Article 8 ECHR. In this case, private details of singer Loreena McKennitt’s life were prevented from publication by injunction, even though the defendant claimed she was telling “her own story.” If we apply this to The Salt Path, depictions of the café owner and other real individuals may constitute misuse of private information if they reveal damaging details about identifiable people. Even if the events occurred in public (e.g., a café), the nature of the information being allegations of bullying and harassment may engage Article 8 protections. Regardless, the decisive question remains whether a reasonable person of ordinary sensibility would find the disclosure offensive as per Campbell v MGN.
Lawyers advising authors and publishers should stress that disclaimers (“names have been changed”) are not sufficient protection if subjects remain identifiable. Additionally, sensitive material (medical details, finances, character allegations) must be carefully risk-assessed before publication.
Defamation
The Defamation Act 2013 provides that a statement is defamatory if it causes “serious harm” to one's reputation. For corporate claimants, harm must amount to “serious financial loss”.
Case law provides key principles:
Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237: Would the words lower the claimant in the eyes of right-thinking members of society,
E Hulton & Co v Jones [1920] AC 581: Liability arises even if characters were intended to be fictitious, provided that a reasonable person acquainted with the claimant would believe the character referred to them,
Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB): Twitter comments demonstrated that “serious harm” is assessed in light of context and dissemination.
In Scotland, the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 codifies defamation law and, under s.8(1)(a), abolishes the defence of “innocent dissemination” tightening liability for publishers. Applied here, the Mullion Cove café owner (and others who recognise themselves) may argue that The Salt Path seriously harmed their reputation by portraying them as bullies. Even unintended identifications (Hulton v Jones) may suffice.
Authors should avoid negative depictions of identifiable third parties unless supported by robust factual evidence or strong public interest arguments.
Publisher Liability and Duty of Care
This controversy has also raised questions over publishers’ duty of care. Ordinarily, publishers contractually protect themselves through warranties from authors regarding the factuality of the work. PRH reportedly included a clause requiring Sally Walker to warrant the memoir’s factual accuracy. The Publishers Association’s Code of Practice, however, recognises that while authors bear the primary responsibility, publishers should be willing to share precautions against legal risks, such as defamation, privacy breaches, or misleading content, where they do not arise from fault or carelessness of the author. However, this code is not legally enforceable.
Yet publishers have previously faced legal and reputational risk:
Irving v Penguin Books Ltd & Lipstadt [2000] EWHC QB 115: Penguin successfully defended a defamation claim by proving the truth of Lipstadt’s allegations about Holocaust denial,
Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Gibson [2017] FCA 204: Penguin Australia was fined $30,000 AUD for publishing Belle Gibson’s cookbook, which falsely claimed cancer cures,
James Frey, A Million Little Pieces (2006): In New York, Random House (prior to their merger with Penguin) refunded readers after Frey’s memoir was found to be fabricated. While the book remained in print, it was remarketed as a novel.
These cases demonstrate that while warranties ordinarily shift responsibility onto authors, publishers may nonetheless face liability (and reputational fallout) where factual falsehoods cause sufficient harm to result in a legal battle. Publishers should consider enhanced due diligence in memoirs, including third-party verification of key claims (e.g., medical conditions), and stronger contractual remedies for misrepresentation.
“The tradition of personal memoir has always been highly ‘fictionalized’ - coloured with an individual’s own ‘emotional truth’ … This is an ethical issue…with convincing arguments on both sides”. Author, Joyce Carol Oates on the James Frey Controversy
Fraud and Misrepresentation
The worldwide success of the book warrants concerns over intentional misrepresentation.
Under the Fraud Act 2006, three offences could be relevant:
Fraud by false representation: knowingly false statements, e.g., about Tim’s medical condition,
Fraud by failing to disclose information: omitting material facts, e.g., property ownership in France,
Fraud by abuse of position: exploiting public sympathy to gain financial advantage.
However, the test for criminal fraud is quite challenging to meet. It requires proof of knowledge/recklessness, materiality, and intent to gain. This is difficult when publishers have relied on author warranties and have received no prior evidence contradicting the authors claims. Even though civil fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation) only requires proof on the balance of probabilities, it still demands evidence of knowledge.
For high-risk memoirs, publishers should include indemnity clauses, require disclosure of supporting documentation, and consider insurance against claims of fraud and misrepresentation.
Medical Ethics and Misleading Advertising
The memoir’s narrative arc heavily implied that walking alleviated CBD symptoms, which potentially raises questions of liability. Medical experts cited by The Observer cast doubt on the accuracy of the CBD diagnosis. This idea was also largely featured in the book's marketing campaign. However, this is at odds with the disclaimer contained within the book, stating that “the author and publishers take no legal responsibility for the use, or misuse, of any information contained in this book”.
In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) regulates advertising across all media, specifically prohibiting unlicensed claims that a product can treat or prevent disease (Rule 12.6). This mirrors prohibited practices under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, s.19(1). Therefore, if PRH’s marketing implied that walking alleviates CBD, this could be investigated by the ASA, despite the disclaimer. Breaching ASA rules could result in the withdrawal of adverts, removal of online content, and significant reputational damage. This was seen in the Belle Gibson case mentioned previously, which demonstrates the dangers of promoting unsubstantiated medical claims. However, it is worth noting that this case took place in Australia.
Publishers and marketers must avoid phrasing that suggests medical efficacy unless backed by scientific evidence. Disclaimers and careful wording (“inspired by” rather than “true”) may be employed to reduce risk, but it is yet to be seen that a disclaimer is sufficient to reduce liability under Rule 12.6.
“True Story” Labelling
The film adaptation raises further questions about appropriate advertising. PRH claimed that the memoir was “unflinchingly honest”, unlike the producers of the film, Number 9 Films and Shadowplay Features, who marked it as “based on a … true story”. The production companies have also described the film as “a faithful adaptation of the book”, stressing they conducted all necessary due diligence and were unaware of any claims against the book when it was optioned, produced, and distributed.
Legally, there is no sharp distinction between marketing a film as “A True Story” or “Based on a True Story”. However, the former creates a stronger implication of factual accuracy. Under the Defamation Act 2013, truth remains a central defence for filmmakers accused of misrepresentation.
It is therefore advisable to exercise caution when advertising media that claims to be factual, as such statements may give rise to a defamation action. If a claim under the Defamation Act is successful, the law will draw a distinction between factual assertions and other forms of expression. As a result, production companies should prefer “based on” labelling, include contractual indemnities from authors, and consider third-party risk assessments during adaptation.
Freedom of Expression
Memoir writing engages Article 10 ECHR. As established in Handyside v UK (1976) 1 EHRR 737, freedom of expression protects even speech that “offends, shocks, or disturbs.” In Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32, the Supreme Court held that memoirs revealing abuse were protected under Article 10, even if publication caused distress to the author’s child. However, Article 10 is always balanced against Article 8 (the right to private life) and the need to prevent harm. This balancing exercise underpins the uncertainty in memoir litigation. Memoirs enjoy strong Article 10 protections, but legal advisors must weigh them carefully against competing privacy, defamation, and consumer protection laws.
Gaps in the law
As current frameworks impose no enforceable duty on publishers to fact-check memoirs, the regulatory gaps exposed by The Salt Path scandal might provoke substantial legal change within the industry regarding:
Stricter advertising regulation where memoirs make medical claims,
Statutory guidelines on disclaimers (“based on true events” vs. “true story”),
Industry codes requiring third-party fact-checking for high-risk works,
Enhanced contractual warranties with sanctions for misrepresentation.
Yet reforms must avoid restraining free expression under Article 10. Any system should balance creative freedom with consumer and third-party protection.
Conclusion
The Salt Path scandal is more than a publishing controversy; it is a case study in the evolving legal challenges of memoir writing. Lawyers advising in this area must navigate a complex intersection of privacy, defamation, fraud, advertising law, medical ethics, and freedom of expression. Publishers and filmmakers should consider heightened due diligence and risk management strategies, particularly where works are marketed as “true.” While the law provides some safeguards, the absence of a statutory duty of care for publishers leaves accountability blurred. In an era increasingly wary of misinformation, the publishing industry may need to evolve its practices, striking a careful balance between protecting truth, respecting privacy, and preserving the creative freedom at the heart of memoir writing.
Which begs the question, will the fallout from The Salt Path pave the way for tighter regulations for truth in memoirs, or will non-fiction have to be taken with a pinch of salt from now on?