Lewis v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors (Rev 1)

Lewis v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors (Rev 1)

The words complained of are capable of bearing the meaning attributed by the claimant. Evidence of Lady Buscombe’s response is admissible on meaning. Permission to amend the Particulars of Claim is granted in part, limited to direct publications by Lady Buscombe. The action is not an abuse of process and will not be struck out. Summary judgment on qualified privilege is refused. The application to amend the Reply to plead malice is refused where disputed, as the particulars do not raise a probability of malice.

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 / Rulings on Multiple Interlocutory Applications Including Meaning, Amendments, Summary Judgment, and Abuse of Process
Outcome
Applications allowed in part and refused in part; action to proceed to trial on amended basis
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Meaning of Defamatory Words, Amendment of Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Malice, Re Publication, Case Management
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Qualified Privilege Meaning of Defamatory Words Amendment of Pleadings Abuse of Process +3 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 6 Authorities cited 23 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 / Rulings on Multiple Interlocutory Applications Including Meaning, Amendments, Summary Judgment, and Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meaning attributed by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the issue of meaning should be tried by judge alone or with a jury
  3. 3 Admissibility of evidence of publishees' reactions to meaning

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are capable of bearing the meaning attributed by the claimant. Evidence of Lady Buscombe’s response is admissible on meaning. Permission to amend the Particulars of Claim is granted in part, limited to direct publications by Lady Buscombe. The action is not an abuse of process and will not be struck out. Summary judgment on qualified privilege is refused. The application to amend the Reply to plead malice is refused where disputed, as the particulars do not raise a probability of malice.

Court Disposition

Applications allowed in part and refused in part; action to proceed to trial on amended basis

Orders

  • Declined to order issue of meaning be tried by judge alone
  • Ruled words are capable of bearing the meaning attributed by claimant