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 facts as at the date of publication, objectively reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Miller was a willing beneficiary of improper conduct and cronyism in the award of Metropolitan Police Service contracts. The evidence relied upon, including hearsay and circumstantial matters, did not meet the threshold required for justification at Chase level 2. The defence of justification failed.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3721 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Miller; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claimant succeeds; defence of justification fails.
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification Defence, Public Procurement, Media Publications, Hearsay Evidence
Defamation Media Law Libel Justification Defence Public Procurement Media Publications 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Miller

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article published by the Defendant was substantially true (justification)
  2. 2 Whether the action was an abuse of process
  3. 3 Assessment of damages if liability established

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant failed to establish, on the facts as at the date of publication, objectively reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Miller was a willing beneficiary of improper conduct and cronyism in the award of Metropolitan Police Service contracts. The evidence relied upon, including hearsay and circumstantial matters, did not meet the threshold required for justification at Chase level 2. The defence of justification failed.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds; defence of justification fails.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant
  • Damages to be assessed if not agreed