The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be otiose. In the modern era of witness statements, extensive and fully particularised pleadings are no longer as necessary as they used to be, so long as they still identify the issues, the extent of the dispute between the parties and the general nature of the case of the pleader.
Lord Woolf MR said: ‘The need for extensive pleadings including particulars should be reduced by the requirement that witness statements are now exchanged. In the majority of proceedings identification of the documents upon which a party relies, together with copies of that party’s witness statements, will make the detail of the nature of the case the other side has to meet obvious. This reduces the need for particulars in order to avoid being taken by surprise. This does not mean that pleadings are now superfluous. Pleadings are still required to mark out the parameters of the case that is being advanced by each party. In particular they are still critical to identify the issues and the extent of the dispute between the parties. What is important is that the pleadings should make clear the general nature of the case of the pleader. This is true both under the old rules and the new rules. The Practice Direction to CPR 16, paragraph 9.3 requires, in defamation proceedings, the facts on which a defendant relies to be given. No more than a concise statement of those facts is required.
As well as their expense, excessive particulars can achieve directly the opposite result from that which is intended. They can obscure the issues rather than providing clarification. In addition, after disclosure and the exchange of witness statements pleadings frequently become of only historic interest.’
Judges:
Lord Woolf MR
Citations:
Times 26-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1464, [1999] 3 All ER 775, [1999] CPLR 533, [1999] EMLR 751
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 4) CA 3-Jul-2001
The fact that a defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing a case after an offer of settlement, was not a reason for not awarding costs to be paid on an indemnity basis. Such an award had no penal element, and did not first require any . .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Limited; Clarke and Neil (1) CA 25-Nov-1998
. .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others CA 7-Jun-2000
The new civil procedure rules did not change the basic rules of evidence. The old rule prevented a party putting in evidence a witness statement which he knew conflicted substantially with the case he wished to place before the jury, and then be . .
Cited by:
Cited – Evans v James (Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Hopkin Deceased) CA 5-Jul-1999
Before the parties called evidence, and having read the papers, the court considered that there was no real defence shown, and invited submissions. Negotiations for the grant of a tenancy had been terminated by the sudden illness of the proposed . .
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Limited; Clarke and Neil (1) CA 25-Nov-1998
. .
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others CA 7-Jun-2000
The new civil procedure rules did not change the basic rules of evidence. The old rule prevented a party putting in evidence a witness statement which he knew conflicted substantially with the case he wished to place before the jury, and then be . .
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd; Liam Clarke and and Andrew Neil (No 3) CA 12-Jun-2001
In defamation proceedings the defendant had invited one issue to be left to the jury. After losing the case, the defendant sought to appeal, arguing that the jury’s verdict was perverse. It was held that such an appeal amounted to an abuse of . .
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 4) CA 3-Jul-2001
The fact that a defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing a case after an offer of settlement, was not a reason for not awarding costs to be paid on an indemnity basis. Such an award had no penal element, and did not first require any . .
Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston and Another (No 4) QBD 4-Mar-2009
Orders were sought to strike out part of the defendants defence of justification to an allegation of defamation.
Held: Where there remains the possibility of a jury trial, it becomes especially important to identify the issues the jurors are . .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and others CA 12-Jun-2001
. .
Cited – Sheikh and Another v Dogan and Others ChD 17-Nov-2009
The judge had reserved his judgment, but had since received further voluminous representations from a party.
Held: None of the matters raised suggested a proper reason for exercising the jurisdiction given by In re Barrell. The claimant was . .
Cited – O’Connor v Piccott and Another PC 17-Feb-2010
(Jamaica) The parties agreed for the sale of land. The seller sought specific performance by the buyer. The buyer had said there was a problem of title. The appellant had failed to defend the proceedings, and appealed against judgment in default. . .
Cited – Bains and Others v Moore and Others QBD 15-Feb-2017
The claimant anti-asbestos campaigners complained that the defendant investigators had infringed their various rights of privacy. They now sought discovery to support the claim.
Held: the contents of the witness statements do show that it is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.83585
