Associated Newspapers Ltd v Murray [2015] EWCA Civ 488 (15 May 2015)

Associated Newspapers Ltd v Murray [2015] EWCA Civ 488 (15 May 2015)

The Court of Appeal held that the claimant's unilateral statement in open court, including the word 'dishonest', did not mischaracterise the pleaded meaning and was a fair expression of the accepted meaning. The court should not interfere with a claimant's statement unless there is real or substantial unfairness to the defendant. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 488
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Associated Newspapers Limited; Claimant/respondent: Joanne Kathleen Murray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) Defamation / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Offer of Amends, Statement in Open Court, Meaning in Defamation, Aggravated Damages, Freedom of Expression
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Offer of Amends Statement in Open Court Meaning in Defamation Aggravated Damages Freedom of Expression

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant/appellant

Joanne Kathleen Murray

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) Defamation / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant may make a unilateral statement in open court after accepting an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the draft statement mischaracterised the pleaded meaning or included matters outside the pleaded case
  3. 3 Whether references to aggravated damages outside the pleadings are permissible

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the claimant's unilateral statement in open court, including the word 'dishonest', did not mischaracterise the pleaded meaning and was a fair expression of the accepted meaning. The court should not interfere with a claimant's statement unless there is real or substantial unfairness to the defendant. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant permitted to read unilateral statement in open court in the terms submitted
  • Defendant to pay substantial damages and costs as agreed