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 could not rely on specific acts of misconduct not known to readers or on vague references to background context or other matters in the article for the purposes of rebutting serious harm or mitigating damages. The Scott v Sampson rule remains applicable despite the Defamation Act 2013. The defendants' proposed amendments to plead such matters were refused, and the relevant parts of the Defence were struck out. Permission to amend was granted only to the extent of deleting unsustainable defences (truth and privilege). Costs were awarded against the defendants for the abandoned defences and the struck-out material.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 665 (QB)
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 Strike Out Application and Defendants' Cross Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
Claimant's strike-out application granted in substantial part; defendants' application to amend granted only to delete unsustainable defences; permission to amend to plead new matters refused.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm to Reputation, Mitigation of Damages, Pleading Standards, Qualified Privilege, Truth Defence, Public Interest Defence, Costs
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Serious Harm to Reputation Mitigation of Damages Pleading Standards Qualified Privilege Truth Defence +2 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 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 Strike Out Application and Defendants' Cross Application 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 matters not pleaded or not known to readers is legitimate in principle and properly pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants could not rely on specific acts of misconduct not known to readers or on vague references to background context or other matters in the article for the purposes of rebutting serious harm or mitigating damages. The Scott v Sampson rule remains applicable despite the Defamation Act 2013. The defendants' proposed amendments to plead such matters were refused, and the relevant parts of the Defence were struck out. Permission to amend was granted only to the extent of deleting unsustainable defences (truth and privilege). Costs were awarded against the defendants for the abandoned defences and the struck-out material.

Court Disposition

Claimant's strike-out application granted in substantial part; defendants' application to amend granted only to delete unsustainable defences; permission to amend to plead new matters refused.

Orders

  • Relevant parts of the Defence struck out, including unsustainable pleas of truth, privilege, and general bad reputation.
  • Defendants granted permission to amend Defence only to delete abandoned defences.