Lewis v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 781 (QB) (31 March 2011)

Lewis v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 781 (QB) (31 March 2011)

The words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the claimant, including the meaning that he lied to the Parliamentary Select Committee. The issue of meaning should not be determined by judge alone at this stage, and the mode of trial should be deferred. Permission is granted to amend the Particulars of Claim to add Lady Buscombe and relevant PCC officers as publishees. Evidence of Lady Buscombe's response is admissible as relevant to meaning and damages.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 781 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mark Lewis; First Defendant: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Second Defendant: Baroness Buscombe; Third Defendant: Press Complaints Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Applications and Case Management Ruling
Outcome
Applications granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Trial by Jury, Case Management, Permission to Amend Pleadings, Qualified Privilege, Abuse of Process
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Meaning of Defamatory Statements Trial by Jury Case Management Permission to Amend Pleadings Qualified Privilege +1 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Lewis

Claimant

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

First Defendant

Baroness Buscombe

Second Defendant

Press Complaints Commission

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Applications and Case Management Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the issue of meaning should be determined by judge alone or with a jury
  3. 3 Whether permission should be granted to amend the Particulars of Claim to add additional publishees and aggravation of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the claimant, including the meaning that he lied to the Parliamentary Select Committee. The issue of meaning should not be determined by judge alone at this stage, and the mode of trial should be deferred. Permission is granted to amend the Particulars of Claim to add Lady Buscombe and relevant PCC officers as publishees. Evidence of Lady Buscombe's response is admissible as relevant to meaning and damages.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Application for ruling on meaning under CPR 53 PD 4.1 granted: words are capable of bearing the meanings alleged.
  • Application for ruling on meaning under s.69(4) refused: issue not to be tried by judge alone at this stage.