Bindel v PinkNews Media Group Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 1868 (QB) (07 July 2021)

Bindel v PinkNews Media Group Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 1868 (QB) (07 July 2021)

The Court refused to order a trial of the proposed preliminary issues because they were factually complex, would require disclosure, witness statements, and cross-examination, and would not resolve liability or costs efficiently. There is no entitlement for defendants to have threshold issues tried as preliminary issues to preserve the ability to make an offer of amends. The overriding objective and established case management principles require that only suitable, discrete issues be tried as preliminary issues, and these criteria were not met.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1868
Parties
Claimant: Julie Bindel; First Defendant: PinkNews Media Group Ltd; Second Defendant: Benjamin Cohen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Application for Trial of Preliminary Issues Prior to Defence
Outcome
Application for trial of preliminary issues refused.
Legal Topics
Offer of Amends, Preliminary Issues, Case Management, Meaning in Defamation, Serious Harm, Reference, Innuendo, Costs
Media Law Defamation Offer of Amends Preliminary Issues Case Management Meaning in Defamation Serious Harm Reference +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 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Bindel

Claimant

PinkNews Media Group Ltd

First Defendant

Benjamin Cohen

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Application for Trial of Preliminary Issues Prior to Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should order a trial of preliminary issues in a defamation claim prior to service of Defence
  2. 2 Whether defendants are entitled to have 'threshold issues' determined as preliminary issues to preserve the ability to make an offer of amends
  3. 3 Suitability of the proposed preliminary issues for separate trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to order a trial of the proposed preliminary issues because they were factually complex, would require disclosure, witness statements, and cross-examination, and would not resolve liability or costs efficiently. There is no entitlement for defendants to have threshold issues tried as preliminary issues to preserve the ability to make an offer of amends. The overriding objective and established case management principles require that only suitable, discrete issues be tried as preliminary issues, and these criteria were not met.

Court Disposition

Application for trial of preliminary issues refused.

Orders

  • No trial of preliminary issues to be directed.
  • Claimant to have opportunity to amend Particulars of Claim to clarify natural and ordinary meaning and innuendo claims.