King v Telegraph Group Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 613 (18 May 2004)

King v Telegraph Group Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 613 (18 May 2004)

The defence of justification in libel cannot rely on the mere fact of police suspicion or police raids as primary facts; it must plead and prove the objective facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion. The court declined to make a special order (security for costs, costs capping, or stay) solely because the claimant was proceeding under a CFA without ATE insurance, holding that such funding arrangements do not of themselves constitute an abuse of process or justify restricting access to justice. The appellate court cannot make new case management orders not sought below unless the lower court's approach was wrong.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 613
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Adam Musa King; Defendants/appellants: Telegraph Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) From Queen's Bench Division, Defamation/libel / Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Orders (pleadings, Security for Costs, Case Management)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of special orders for security for costs/costs capping; allowed in part to permit amendment of the defence of justification to distinguish between police suspicion and reasonable grounds for suspicion, subject to proper pleading.
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification Defence, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), After the Event (ate) Insurance, Security for Costs, Case Management, Costs Capping, Repetition Rule, Conduct Rule
Defamation Civil Procedure Media Law Libel Justification Defence Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) After the Event (ate) Insurance Security for Costs +4 more

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Musa King

Claimant/respondent

Telegraph Group Limited

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) From Queen's Bench Division, Defamation/libel / Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Orders (pleadings, Security for Costs, Case Management)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of justification in libel can plead police suspicion as a primary fact or must plead underlying objective facts giving rise to suspicion;
  2. 2 Whether the court should make a special order (security for costs, costs capping, or stay) where a claimant proceeds under a CFA without ATE insurance;
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's conduct or funding arrangement constitutes an abuse of process;

Ratio Decidendi

The defence of justification in libel cannot rely on the mere fact of police suspicion or police raids as primary facts; it must plead and prove the objective facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion. The court declined to make a special order (security for costs, costs capping, or stay) solely because the claimant was proceeding under a CFA without ATE insurance, holding that such funding arrangements do not of themselves constitute an abuse of process or justify restricting access to justice. The appellate court cannot make new case management orders not sought below unless the lower court's approach was wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of special orders for security for costs/costs capping; allowed in part to permit amendment of the defence of justification to distinguish between police suspicion and reasonable grounds for suspicion, subject to proper pleading.

Orders

  • Defendants permitted to reinstate sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) of particulars of justification if the defence is amended to distinguish between the two Lucas-Box meanings and to specify which particulars support which meaning.
  • No special order for security for costs, costs capping, or stay granted against the claimant proceeding under a CFA without ATE insurance.