Ghannouchi v Houni Ltd. & Ors [2003] EWHC 552 (QB) (17 March 2003)

Ghannouchi v Houni Ltd. & Ors [2003] EWHC 552 (QB) (17 March 2003)

The Defendants are not permitted to rely on revised paragraph 11 or introduce the proposed cross-examination, as it would unfairly reintroduce justification by the back door, is not directly relevant background context, and risks disproportionate complexity and unfairness to the Claimant.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 552
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Rashid Ghannouchi; Defendants/applicants: Houni Ltd & others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Application Regarding Striking Out Defences and Amendment of Pleadings
Outcome
Permission refused to advance case contained in revised paragraph 11; Defendants may not rely on proposed cross-examination.
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification, Qualified Privilege, Mitigation of Damages, Case Management
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Justification Qualified Privilege Mitigation of Damages Case Management

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Rashid Ghannouchi

Claimant/respondent

Houni Ltd & others

Defendants/applicants

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Application Regarding Striking Out Defences and Amendment of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants may rely on revised paragraph 11 to introduce evidence in diminution of damages after abandoning defences of justification and qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether proposed cross-examination constitutes directly relevant background context admissible under Burstein v. Times Newspapers Ltd

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants are not permitted to rely on revised paragraph 11 or introduce the proposed cross-examination, as it would unfairly reintroduce justification by the back door, is not directly relevant background context, and risks disproportionate complexity and unfairness to the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Permission refused to advance case contained in revised paragraph 11; Defendants may not rely on proposed cross-examination.

Orders

  • Defences of justification and qualified privilege struck out.
  • No evidence to be led as to the allegedly autocratic nature of the Tunisian regime.