Morgan v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 1725 (QB) (06 July 2018)

Morgan v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 1725 (QB) (06 July 2018)

The Article's meaning, as found by the Court, is sufficiently serious to give rise to an inference of serious reputational harm under s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013. The criticism is direct, forthright, and endorsed by authoritative sources and the publisher, crossing the threshold of seriousness required by statute.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1725 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Steve Morgan CBE; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Determination of Preliminary Issues (meaning, Fact/opinion, Serious Harm) and Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
Application to amend Defence dismissed; Article found to convey a serious defamatory imputation; inference of serious harm established.
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm Threshold, Defamatory Meaning, Fact Vs Opinion, Honest Opinion Defence, Case Management in Defamation
Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm Threshold Defamatory Meaning Fact Vs Opinion Honest Opinion Defence Case Management in Defamation

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 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steve Morgan CBE

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / Determination of Preliminary Issues (meaning, Fact/opinion, Serious Harm) and Application to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the Article?
  2. 2 Are the allegations in the Article statements of fact or opinion?
  3. 3 Does the Article convey a serious defamatory imputation under s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013?

Ratio Decidendi

The Article's meaning, as found by the Court, is sufficiently serious to give rise to an inference of serious reputational harm under s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013. The criticism is direct, forthright, and endorsed by authoritative sources and the publisher, crossing the threshold of seriousness required by statute.

Court Disposition

Application to amend Defence dismissed; Article found to convey a serious defamatory imputation; inference of serious harm established.

Orders

  • Defendant's application to amend Defence to withdraw admission of serious harm is dismissed.
  • Court finds Article conveys a serious defamatory imputation under s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013.