McDonalds Corp and Another v Steel and Another: CA 25 Mar 1994

The plaintiff company had sued the defendants in defamation with regard to a leaflet publishd and distributed by them. The defendants argued justification. The defendants appealed against an order striking out parts of their defence, saying that the plea of justification was inufficiently pleaded and supported by evidence. The defendants said that the issue should be decided only after completion of discovery.
Held: The defendants’ appeal was allowed. The proposed test for supporting evidence for propriety of a plea of justification was not that it was ‘clear and sufficient’. This would impose an unrealistic burden on a defendant.
Neill, Steyn, Peter Gibson LJJ
[1994] EWCA Civ 41, [1995] EMLR 527, [1995] 3 All ER 615
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd (2) CA 1988
In considering what evidence can be used in mitigation of damages in defamation, it is necessary to draw a distinction between evidence which is put forward to show that the plaintiff is a man of bad reputation and evidence which is already before . .
CitedAtkinson v Fitzwalter CA 25-Mar-1987
A court should not grant leave to amend a pleading into a form which is liable to be struck out. The more serious the allegation that is made, the more clearly satisfied must the Court be that no prejudice will be caused that cannot be compensated . .
CitedPrager v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 1988
The plaintiff claimed in libel, alleging certain meanings. The defendant sought to plead in justification to support certain defamatory meanings, but not those alleged.
Held: Where the words used were capable of being read by the judge to . .
CitedMangena v Edward Lloyd Ltd 1908
The plaintiff claimed in defamation after the defendant had republished an extract from a paper laid before parliament.
Held: The ‘blue book’ reflected material laid before both houses of parliament, and reproduction of it was protected under . .
CitedMangena v Edward Lloyd Ltd 1908
The plaintiff claimed in defamation after the defendant had republished an extract from a paper laid before parliament.
Held: The ‘blue book’ reflected material laid before both houses of parliament, and reproduction of it was protected under . .
CitedSteamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v Trollope and Colls Ltd CA 1986
The employers sued the builders and architects alleging defects in the air conditioning system. Later, cracking and displacement of the walls was discovered, caused allegedly by not having sulphate resisting cement, and defects in the wall ties. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.465096