Application to read unilateral statement in satisfaction of defamation claim.
Held: It follows from the terms of section 3 of the 1996 Act that the court should not regard as normal an oral hearing of submissions by a defendant that a claimant should be refused permission to make a unilateral statement. That would involve further submissions by a claimant, which would come close to the continuation of proceedings which is prohibited by s.3(2). The jurisdiction to refuse permission should be used only where there is ‘sufficient reason’, and the determination of what is or is not a sufficient reason should not require the court to determine what would have been issues in the action if it had not been settled.
She could read the statement.
Tugendhat J
[2014] EWHC 1170 (QB)
Bailii
Defamation Act 1996 2 3 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Barnet v Crozier CA 1987
The court considered an application by a third party to proceedings to prevent a statement being read out in open court in defamation proceedings. Justification had originally been pleaded by both defendants but, as part of a settlement with the . .
Cited – Winslet v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 3-Nov-2009
The parties had compromised a defamation claim with an offer of amends, but the claimant wished to read out a statement in accordance with the rules, being unhappy with the apology offered. The defendant objected, saying that she had no entitlement . .
Cited – Abu v MGN Ltd (Practice Note) QBD 2002
Eady J explained the background and legislative purpose of the 1996 Act provisions for offers of amends. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Murray CA 15-May-2015
The newspaper had been sued in defamation, and it had been agreed that a statement would be made. The parties however differed as to the form of statement to be read out in court.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The allegation complained of is that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.523799
