Cruddas v Calvert & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 171 (17 March 2015)

Cruddas v Calvert & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 171 (17 March 2015)

The Court of Appeal held that, for the purposes of libel, the most serious meaning (meaning 1) attributed to the articles—that the claimant's conduct was 'inappropriate, unacceptable and wrong'—was not established as true by the evidence, and thus the articles were defamatory. However, the Court found that the defendants were not liable for malicious falsehood in respect of meaning 1, as they did not intend readers to attribute the alternative, more serious (criminal) meaning. For meanings 2 and 3 (regarding foreign donations), the Court found the articles were not true and upheld liability for libel and malicious falsehood in those respects. The damages award was reduced to reflect the...

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 171
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Peter Cruddas; Defendant/appellant: Jonathan Calvert; Defendant/appellant: Heidi Blake; Defendant/appellant: Times Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Political Donations, Journalistic Privilege, Damages, Injunctions
Media Law Defamation Tort Law Public Law Libel Malicious Falsehood Political Donations Journalistic Privilege +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Cruddas

Claimant/respondent

Jonathan Calvert

Defendant/appellant

Heidi Blake

Defendant/appellant

Times Newspapers Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the articles published by The Sunday Times were defamatory of the claimant (libel)
  2. 2 Whether the articles were malicious falsehoods
  3. 3 Whether the meanings attributed to the articles were true

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, for the purposes of libel, the most serious meaning (meaning 1) attributed to the articles—that the claimant's conduct was 'inappropriate, unacceptable and wrong'—was not established as true by the evidence, and thus the articles were defamatory. However, the Court found that the defendants were not liable for malicious falsehood in respect of meaning 1, as they did not intend readers to attribute the alternative, more serious (criminal) meaning. For meanings 2 and 3 (regarding foreign donations), the Court found the articles were not true and upheld liability for libel and malicious falsehood in those respects. The damages award was reduced to reflect the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced

Orders

  • Damages award reduced from £180,000 to £50,000
  • Injunction against repetition of libels maintained