Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors

Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in summarily striking out the defence of qualified privilege and certain particulars of justification without hearing evidence and without giving the defendants a fair opportunity to respond to late-raised arguments. The issues of responsible journalism, the roles of the defendants, and the adequacy of pre-publication notice to the claimant required a full trial. The defence of qualified privilege and certain particulars of justification were restored to the pleadings, and the claimant's cross-appeal was dismissed.

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/defamation) / Appeal From Case Management Conference Order (queen’s Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Justification, Summary Judgment, Pleading Requirements, Reynolds Defence, Aggravated Damages
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Justification Summary Judgment Pleading Requirements Reynolds Defence +1 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 5 Authorities cited 13 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/defamation) / Appeal From Case Management Conference Order (queen’s Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of qualified privilege (Reynolds defence) should be summarily struck out prior to trial
  2. 2 Whether certain particulars of justification should be struck out or restored
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was afforded a fair opportunity to respond to allegations prior to publication

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in summarily striking out the defence of qualified privilege and certain particulars of justification without hearing evidence and without giving the defendants a fair opportunity to respond to late-raised arguments. The issues of responsible journalism, the roles of the defendants, and the adequacy of pre-publication notice to the claimant required a full trial. The defence of qualified privilege and certain particulars of justification were restored to the pleadings, and the claimant's cross-appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defence of qualified privilege restored to the pleadings
  • Permission granted to amend the defence