Failure to plead decisive malice allegation
Appeal by the claimant against an order following a judgment striking out particulars of malice pleaded in the amended reply, among other determinations. Judgment was then entered in favour of the Campaign Against Antisemitsm in respect of a claim for libel. The limited issue on the appeal for which permission has been granted is whether the judge was right to strike out the plea of malice set out in paragraph 26 of the amended reply. The article had referred to spent convictions, and the claimant argued that the defence under s8 of the 1974 Act was disapplied for malice.
Held: The judge had acted correctly. It was clearly a non malicious purpose to say that the convictions pointed toward a greater likelihood that the claimant would lie.
Lord Justice Dingemans
[2021] EWCA Civ 1006
Bailii, Judiciary
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 8
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism QBD 15-Feb-2019
Judgment after a trial of preliminary issues of meaning and whether of fact or opinion.
Nicklin J said: ‘Although the Claimant has selected only parts of the Articles for complaint, the Court must ascertain the meaning of these sections in the . .
See Also – Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism QBD 6-Nov-2020
Defendant’s application to strike out claims in defamation and misuse of personal information. . .
Cited – Horrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .
Cited – Herbage v Pressdram Ltd CA 1984
There was a publication of articles which referred to convictions which were spent under the 1974 Act. The court restated the principle in Bonnard v Perryman: ‘These principles have evolved because of the value the court has placed on freedom of . .
Cited – Herbage v Pressdram Ltd CA 1984
There was a publication of articles which referred to convictions which were spent under the 1974 Act. The court restated the principle in Bonnard v Perryman: ‘These principles have evolved because of the value the court has placed on freedom of . .
Cited – KJO v XIM QBD 7-Jul-2011
The claimant had, some 20 years previously, been convicted and sentenced for forgery of a will. The defendants, relatives, had ever since written to those with whom he had dealings to tell them of the conviction and facts. The claimant, unable to . .
Cited – Thompson v James and Another (2) QBD 15-Mar-2013
A pleading of malice requires a high degree of particularity, and the matters pleaded must be more consistent with the presence of malice than its absence . .
Cited – Bray v Deutsche Bank Ag QBD 12-Jun-2008
A former employee of the defendant bank sued in defamation after the bank published a press release about its results which he said was critical of him.
Held: Where there is a real issue as to whether the words are defamatory of the claimant, . .
Cited – Brewster and Cromwell v Regina CACD 27-May-2010
The defendants appealed against their convictions for kidnapping and witness intimidation saying that the court should have allowed them to put the principle prosecution witness’ bad character in issue by admission of her criminal convictions.
Defamation
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.664387
