Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1007 (29 July 2005)

Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1007 (29 July 2005)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in striking out the qualified privilege (Reynolds) defence and limiting the particulars of justification without a trial. The defendants were entitled to have their defence tested at trial, with all pleaded facts assumed true, and the summary judgment procedure was not appropriate given the complexity and factual disputes. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the qualified privilege defence and certain particulars of justification.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1007
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Lance Armstrong; Defendant/appellant: Times Newspapers Ltd; Defendant/appellant: David Walsh; Defendant/appellant: Alan English
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (libel) / Appeal From Case Management Order (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Reynolds Defence, Summary Judgment, Striking Out Pleadings, Justification in Defamation, Public Interest Journalism
Media Law Defamation Qualified Privilege Reynolds Defence Summary Judgment Striking Out Pleadings Justification in Defamation Public Interest Journalism

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lance Armstrong

Claimant/respondent

Times Newspapers Ltd

Defendant/appellant

David Walsh

Defendant/appellant

Alan English

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (libel) / Appeal From Case Management Order (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of qualified privilege (Reynolds defence) should be struck out pre-trial
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' particulars of justification should be limited
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to summary judgment on the qualified privilege defence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in striking out the qualified privilege (Reynolds) defence and limiting the particulars of justification without a trial. The defendants were entitled to have their defence tested at trial, with all pleaded facts assumed true, and the summary judgment procedure was not appropriate given the complexity and factual disputes. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the qualified privilege defence and certain particulars of justification.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants' qualified privilege (Reynolds) defence reinstated.
  • Certain particulars of justification restored to the pleadings.