Adelson & Anor v Associated Newspapers [2008] EWHC 278 (QB) (19 February 2008)

Adelson & Anor v Associated Newspapers [2008] EWHC 278 (QB) (19 February 2008)

The Defendant's Open Offer was incapable of acceptance because it required the Defendant to make a Statement in Open Court declaring allegations to be false while simultaneously maintaining a plea of justification, which is inconsistent and not permissible. Additionally, the Open Offer's provision for costs was too uncertain to form the basis of a binding settlement. Therefore, the Defendant's application for a stay or dismissal of proceedings was dismissed.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 278 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Sheldon Adelson; Claimant: Las Vegas Sands Corporation; Defendant: Associated Newspapers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Application for Stay or Dismissal and Related Applications
Outcome
Defendant's application for a stay or dismissal of proceedings dismissed; Claimants' application to strike out the defence of justification refused.
Legal Topics
Libel, Offer of Amends, Justification Defence, Settlement Offers, Costs, Statements in Open Court, Abuse of Process
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Offer of Amends Justification Defence Settlement Offers Costs Statements in Open Court +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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheldon Adelson

Claimant

Las Vegas Sands Corporation

Claimant

Associated Newspapers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Application for Stay or Dismissal and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's Open Offer renders further proceedings an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the defence of justification should be struck out in light of the Open Offer
  3. 3 Whether the court can permit a Statement in Open Court when the Defendant maintains a plea of justification

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's Open Offer was incapable of acceptance because it required the Defendant to make a Statement in Open Court declaring allegations to be false while simultaneously maintaining a plea of justification, which is inconsistent and not permissible. Additionally, the Open Offer's provision for costs was too uncertain to form the basis of a binding settlement. Therefore, the Defendant's application for a stay or dismissal of proceedings was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for a stay or dismissal of proceedings dismissed; Claimants' application to strike out the defence of justification refused.

Orders

  • Defendant's application for a stay or dismissal of proceedings is dismissed.
  • Claimants' application to strike out the defence of justification is refused.