Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 3721 (QB) (21 December 2012)

Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 3721 (QB) (21 December 2012)

The Defendant failed to establish, on the objectively assessed facts as at the date of publication, that there were reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Miller was a willing beneficiary of improper conduct and cronyism in the award of Metropolitan Police Service contracts. The hearsay evidence relied upon was insufficient and selective, and the core facts did not support the defamatory meaning. The defence of justification fails.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3721
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Miller; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Defence of justification dismissed; judgment for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification Defence, Public Procurement, Hearsay Evidence
Defamation Media Law Libel Justification Defence Public Procurement Hearsay Evidence

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Miller

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Article's defamatory meaning was substantially true
  2. 2 Whether the action was an abuse of process
  3. 3 Assessment of damages if justification fails

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant failed to establish, on the objectively assessed facts as at the date of publication, that there were reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Miller was a willing beneficiary of improper conduct and cronyism in the award of Metropolitan Police Service contracts. The hearsay evidence relied upon was insufficient and selective, and the core facts did not support the defamatory meaning. The defence of justification fails.

Court Disposition

Defence of justification dismissed; judgment for the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages to the claimant.
  • Defendant to pay claimant's costs.