Sharma v Singh & Anor [2007] EWHC 2988 (QB) (17 December 2007)

Sharma v Singh & Anor [2007] EWHC 2988 (QB) (17 December 2007)

The words complained of are capable of bearing the meanings pleaded by the Defendants in para 6(1) and the first part of 6(2) of the draft amended Defence, and permission is granted to amend accordingly. The meanings pleaded in 6(3) and 6(4), and the particulars in paras 6.64 to 6.66, are struck out or refused as they infringe the repetition rule or are irrelevant. The particulars relating to Miss C and Miss J are not struck out as they are not insufficiently serious at this stage.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2988
Parties
Claimant: Captain Ashvini Kumar Sharma; Defendant: Amar Singh; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Applications: Permission to Amend Defence and Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence
Outcome
Application to amend Defence granted in part; application to strike out parts of Defence granted in part.
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification Defence, Meaning of Defamatory Words, Pleading Amendments, Repetition Rule, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Sexual Harassment Allegations
Defamation Media Law Libel Justification Defence Meaning of Defamatory Words Pleading Amendments Repetition Rule Protection From Harassment Act 1997 +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Captain Ashvini Kumar Sharma

Claimant

Amar Singh

Defendant

Associated Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Applications: Permission to Amend Defence and Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the meanings pleaded by the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the Defence should be permitted to be amended as sought
  3. 3 Whether parts of the Defence should be struck out for infringing the repetition rule or for irrelevance

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are capable of bearing the meanings pleaded by the Defendants in para 6(1) and the first part of 6(2) of the draft amended Defence, and permission is granted to amend accordingly. The meanings pleaded in 6(3) and 6(4), and the particulars in paras 6.64 to 6.66, are struck out or refused as they infringe the repetition rule or are irrelevant. The particulars relating to Miss C and Miss J are not struck out as they are not insufficiently serious at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application to amend Defence granted in part; application to strike out parts of Defence granted in part.

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend Defence as per para 6(1) and first part of 6(2).
  • Meanings in 6(3) and 6(4) struck out.