Bokova v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 2032 (QB) (31 July 2018)

Bokova v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 2032 (QB) (31 July 2018)

Once the court has determined the actual meaning of the words complained of as a preliminary issue, the Defendant must plead and prove the substantial truth of those meanings; it is impermissible to rely on alternative or amended Lucas-Box meanings. The court will strike out parts of the Defence and particulars of truth that are incapable of proving the actual meanings or are otherwise abusive or irrelevant. However, particulars closely connected to the claimant's conduct may be admissible in mitigation of damages even if not sufficient for the defence of truth.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2032
Parties
Claimant: Irina Bokova; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Libel Proceedings (defamation) / Application to Strike Out Parts of the Amended Defence and Particulars of Truth Following Determination of Meaning as a Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Application granted in part; paragraphs 6(1) to 6(4) of the Amended Defence struck out; permission to amend refused; certain particulars of truth struck out; remainder allowed to stand for trial and/or mitigation of damages.
Legal Topics
Libel, Defence of Truth, Striking Out Pleadings, Meaning Determination, Mitigation of Damages
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Defence of Truth Striking Out Pleadings Meaning Determination Mitigation of Damages

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 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irina Bokova

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Proceedings (defamation) / Application to Strike Out Parts of the Amended Defence and Particulars of Truth Following Determination of Meaning as a Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Defence and particulars of truth are capable of proving the substantial truth of the defamatory imputations as determined by the court
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant can rely on alternative or amended Lucas-Box meanings after the court has determined the actual meaning
  3. 3 Whether certain particulars of truth and mitigation paragraphs should be struck out as incapable, irrelevant, or abusive

Ratio Decidendi

Once the court has determined the actual meaning of the words complained of as a preliminary issue, the Defendant must plead and prove the substantial truth of those meanings; it is impermissible to rely on alternative or amended Lucas-Box meanings. The court will strike out parts of the Defence and particulars of truth that are incapable of proving the actual meanings or are otherwise abusive or irrelevant. However, particulars closely connected to the claimant's conduct may be admissible in mitigation of damages even if not sufficient for the defence of truth.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; paragraphs 6(1) to 6(4) of the Amended Defence struck out; permission to amend refused; certain particulars of truth struck out; remainder allowed to stand for trial and/or mitigation of damages.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 6(1) to 6(4) of the Amended Defence struck out.
  • Permission to amend Lucas-Box meanings refused.