Ware v Waters & Anor [2025] EWHC 389 (KB) (25 February 2025)

Ware v Waters & Anor [2025] EWHC 389 (KB) (25 February 2025)

The statements that the claimant made a documentary containing lies about the first defendant as a Zionist mouthpiece to undermine his advocacy for Palestinians are expressions of opinion, with the documentary indicated as the basis. However, the statements that the claimant positively supports the genocide of the Palestinian people by Israeli forces are bald statements of fact, not opinion, and no basis is indicated for these assertions. Both statements are defamatory at common law.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 389 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: John Ware; First Defendant: Roger Waters; Second Defendant: Al Jazeera Media Network
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Libel / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined: statements are defamatory; some are opinion with indicated basis, others are statements of fact without indicated basis.
Legal Topics
Libel, Honest Opinion Defence, Meaning of Statements, Fact Vs Opinion, Basis of Opinion, Defamation Act 2013
Defamation Media Law Libel Honest Opinion Defence Meaning of Statements Fact Vs Opinion Basis of Opinion 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Ware

Claimant

Roger Waters

First Defendant

Al Jazeera Media Network

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the statements in issue?
  2. 2 Are the statements, or any of them, defamatory of the claimant at common law?
  3. 3 Are the statements, or any of them, statements of fact or opinion?

Ratio Decidendi

The statements that the claimant made a documentary containing lies about the first defendant as a Zionist mouthpiece to undermine his advocacy for Palestinians are expressions of opinion, with the documentary indicated as the basis. However, the statements that the claimant positively supports the genocide of the Palestinian people by Israeli forces are bald statements of fact, not opinion, and no basis is indicated for these assertions. Both statements are defamatory at common law.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: statements are defamatory; some are opinion with indicated basis, others are statements of fact without indicated basis.