Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstat [2000] EWHC QB 115 (11th April, 2000)

Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstat [2000] EWHC QB 115 (11th April, 2000)

The court found that the passages in 'Denying the Holocaust' were defamatory of Irving but that the defendants had established the substantial truth of the defamatory imputations. The evidence showed that Irving had distorted historical evidence, denied the Holocaust, and was discredited as a historian. The defence of justification succeeded, and the claim for damages failed.

Citation
[2000] EWHC QB 115
Parties
Claimant: David John Cadwell Irving; First Defendant: Penguin Books Limited; Second Defendant: Deborah E. Lipstadt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / High Court Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification Defence, Holocaust Denial, Historiography, Damages
Defamation Media Law Libel Justification Defence Holocaust Denial Historiography 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David John Cadwell Irving

Claimant

Penguin Books Limited

First Defendant

Deborah E. Lipstadt

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / High Court Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the passages in 'Denying the Holocaust' are defamatory of David Irving
  2. 2 Whether the defamatory imputations are substantially true (justification)
  3. 3 Whether damages are payable to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the passages in 'Denying the Holocaust' were defamatory of Irving but that the defendants had established the substantial truth of the defamatory imputations. The evidence showed that Irving had distorted historical evidence, denied the Holocaust, and was discredited as a historian. The defence of justification succeeded, and the claim for damages failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for damages dismissed
  • Defendants entitled to rely on justification defence