Harrath v Stand for Peace Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 665 (QB) (06 April 2016)

Harrath v Stand for Peace Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 665 (QB) (06 April 2016)

The court held that the defendants' pleas based on the Interpol Red Notice and the Tunisian conviction were unsustainable and should be struck out, as the conviction had been expunged and the Red Notice did not confirm guilt. The court refused permission to amend the Defence to plead matters not mentioned in the article or not properly particularised, as such matters were not legitimate bases for mitigation or rebuttal of serious harm under established legal principles. The court permitted amendment to reflect the abandonment of the privilege and truth defences and allowed limited reliance on the fact of the conviction (with its current status) in relation to damages, but not as a basis...

Citation
[2016] EWHC 665
Parties
Claimant: Mohamed Ali Harrath; First Defendant: Stand for Peace Limited; Second Defendant: Samuel Westrop
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Interlocutory Applications: Claimant's Application to Strike Out Parts of the Defence and Defendants' Cross Application for Permission to Amend Defence
Outcome
Claimant's application to strike out parts of the Defence granted in substantial part; defendants' application to amend Defence granted only to the extent of deleting unsustainable defences and with limited permission to amend as indicated.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm to Reputation, Mitigation of Damages, Pleading Standards, Qualified Privilege, Truth Defence, Public Interest Defence, Costs
Defamation Civil Procedure Serious Harm to Reputation Mitigation of Damages Pleading Standards Qualified Privilege Truth Defence Public Interest 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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Ali Harrath

Claimant

Stand for Peace Limited

First Defendant

Samuel Westrop

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Interlocutory Applications: Claimant's Application to Strike Out Parts of the Defence and Defendants' Cross Application for Permission to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the Defence should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds or no real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the defendants should be permitted to amend the Defence to plead certain matters in mitigation of damages or in answer to serious harm
  3. 3 Whether reliance on certain matters (e.g., prior convictions, bad reputation, other allegations) is legitimate in principle and properly pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants' pleas based on the Interpol Red Notice and the Tunisian conviction were unsustainable and should be struck out, as the conviction had been expunged and the Red Notice did not confirm guilt. The court refused permission to amend the Defence to plead matters not mentioned in the article or not properly particularised, as such matters were not legitimate bases for mitigation or rebuttal of serious harm under established legal principles. The court permitted amendment to reflect the abandonment of the privilege and truth defences and allowed limited reliance on the fact of the conviction (with its current status) in relation to damages, but not as a basis...

Court Disposition

Claimant's application to strike out parts of the Defence granted in substantial part; defendants' application to amend Defence granted only to the extent of deleting unsustainable defences and with limited permission to amend as indicated.

Orders

  • Strike out of Defence pleas based on Interpol Red Notice and Tunisian conviction as unsustainable.
  • Refusal of permission to amend Defence to plead matters not mentioned in the article or not properly particularised.