The defendants in this defamation action appealed against interlocutory orders striking out their defence of justification.
Held: Elias LJ indicated obiter that his ‘strong preliminary view’ was that ‘a pleading of fraud in the context of justification should be subject to the same stringent requirements as it is in other contexts’.
Judges:
Pill, Elias LJJ, Sharp J
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Civ 423, [2012] EMLR 25
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stocker v Stocker QBD 10-Jun-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by his former wife in a post on facebook. The posting and associatedeEmails were said falsely to have accused him of serious abuse, and that the accusations had undermined his relationship with his new partner.
See Also – Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Foley and Another (No 2) QBD 30-Jul-2012
Eady J considered whether a pleading of fraud in a defamation case should be subject to similar restrictions as to a similar pleading in a torts claim, and ruled that the introduction of the probability test would unduly inhibit the pleading of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Litigation Practice
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452473
