Right Hon Aitken MP v Preston & Ors [1997] EWCA Civ 1710 (15th May, 1997)

Right Hon Aitken MP v Preston & Ors [1997] EWCA Civ 1710 (15th May, 1997)

The trial required a prolonged examination of documents which could not conveniently be made with a jury, and the interests of justice were best served by trial by judge alone; the judge's exercise of discretion was not plainly wrong and should not be overturned.

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 1710
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Jonathan William Patrick Aitken MP; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Peter Preston; Defendant/respondent: David Pallister; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Guardian Newspapers Ltd; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Granada Television Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Trial by Jury, Section 69 Supreme Court Act 1981, Mode of Trial, Aggravated Damages
Media Law Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Trial by Jury Section 69 Supreme Court Act 1981 Mode of Trial Aggravated Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan William Patrick Aitken MP

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Peter Preston

Defendant/respondent/appellant

David Pallister

Defendant/respondent

Guardian Newspapers Ltd

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Granada Television Limited

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial of consolidated libel actions should be by judge alone or by judge and jury under section 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether the trial requires prolonged examination of documents which cannot conveniently be made with a jury
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order trial by jury despite inconvenience

Ratio Decidendi

The trial required a prolonged examination of documents which could not conveniently be made with a jury, and the interests of justice were best served by trial by judge alone; the judge's exercise of discretion was not plainly wrong and should not be overturned.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of the appeal
  • Order under section 4(2) revoked