Watkins v Mackle & Anor [2021] EWHC 1723 (QB) (28 June 2021)

Watkins v Mackle & Anor [2021] EWHC 1723 (QB) (28 June 2021)

The Court determined the natural and ordinary meaning of each Message, finding that most conveyed statements of fact about the Claimant's alleged involvement in fraud, with only two statements being expressions of opinion. As a result, the defence of honest opinion could only apply to those two expressions of opinion, and the strike-out application was refused for the remainder as the Defence was not abusive or without reasonable grounds.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1723
Parties
Claimant: Neal Watkins; First Defendant: Declan Mackle; Second Defendant: Grosvenor Hill Capital Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Determination of Preliminary Issues (meaning of Statements and Strike Out Application)
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; strike-out application refused.
Legal Topics
Libel, Honest Opinion Defence, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Strike Out Applications, Defamation Act 2013
Defamation Media Law Libel Honest Opinion Defence Meaning of Defamatory Statements Strike Out Applications Defamation Act 2013

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neal Watkins

Claimant

Declan Mackle

First Defendant

Grosvenor Hill Capital Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / Determination of Preliminary Issues (meaning of Statements and Strike Out Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of each of the Messages?
  2. 2 Are the Messages statements of fact or expressions of opinion?
  3. 3 Should the defence of honest opinion be struck out under CPR r 3.4?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court determined the natural and ordinary meaning of each Message, finding that most conveyed statements of fact about the Claimant's alleged involvement in fraud, with only two statements being expressions of opinion. As a result, the defence of honest opinion could only apply to those two expressions of opinion, and the strike-out application was refused for the remainder as the Defence was not abusive or without reasonable grounds.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; strike-out application refused.

Orders

  • Court determined the natural and ordinary meaning of each Message and whether they were statements of fact or opinion.
  • Strike-out of honest opinion defence refused except where the Messages were found to be statements of fact.