Milne v Express Newspapers

Milne v Express Newspapers

Section 4(3) of the Defamation Act 1996 is to be construed as importing a recklessness standard in the sense of Lord Diplock in Horrocks v Lowe. The defence is only lost where the defendant knew or was recklessly indifferent to the falsity of the statement. The claimant's proposed amendments did not meet this high threshold and were properly refused.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Andrew Milne; Respondent/defendant: Express Newspapers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Applications for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to amend grounds of appeal granted but substantive appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Offer of Amends, Section 4(3) Defamation Act 1996, Statutory Construction, Malice and Recklessness, Strike Out Applications
Defamation Media Law Offer of Amends Section 4(3) Defamation Act 1996 Statutory Construction Malice and Recklessness Strike Out Applications

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Milne

Appellant/claimant

Express Newspapers

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Applications for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of section 4(3) of the Defamation Act 1996 regarding 'reason to believe' a statement was false
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend his reply to plead facts rebutting the statutory defence under section 4(3)
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in striking out paragraphs of the reply and refusing permission to amend

Ratio Decidendi

Section 4(3) of the Defamation Act 1996 is to be construed as importing a recklessness standard in the sense of Lord Diplock in Horrocks v Lowe. The defence is only lost where the defendant knew or was recklessly indifferent to the falsity of the statement. The claimant's proposed amendments did not meet this high threshold and were properly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to amend grounds of appeal granted but substantive appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application to extend time for first appeal refused.
  • First application for permission to appeal dismissed.