Harcombe & Anor v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 1523 (KB) (25 June 2024)

Harcombe & Anor v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 1523 (KB) (25 June 2024)

The court held that certain parts of the articles were protected by statutory qualified privilege as fair and accurate reports of statements by government officials and peer-reviewed scientific journals, and that the public interest defence was available where the defendant reasonably believed publication was in the public interest. The court found the articles contained both statements of fact and opinion, and that the claimants had not established malice sufficient to defeat privilege. The court determined the natural and ordinary meanings of the articles and whether they were defamatory, but did not adjudicate on the underlying scientific truth of the statin debate.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1523 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Zoë Harcombe PhD; Claimant: Dr Malcolm Kendrick; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited; Defendant: Barney Calman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues (qualified Privilege, Public Interest, Meaning, Fact/opinion)
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; certain parts of the articles held privileged; public interest defence available; issues of truth, honest opinion, serious harm, and remedies stayed for further trial.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Public Interest Defence, Honest Opinion, Truth Defence, Malice, Reporting Privilege, Peer Reviewed Scientific Publication Privilege
Media Law Defamation Tort Libel Qualified Privilege Public Interest Defence Honest Opinion Truth Defence +3 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zoë Harcombe PhD

Claimant

Dr Malcolm Kendrick

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Barney Calman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues (qualified Privilege, Public Interest, Meaning, Fact/opinion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the articles published by the defendants are protected by statutory qualified privilege under s.15 Defamation Act 1996 and/or s.6 Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the articles were published on a matter of public interest under s.4 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether the articles are statements of fact or opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that certain parts of the articles were protected by statutory qualified privilege as fair and accurate reports of statements by government officials and peer-reviewed scientific journals, and that the public interest defence was available where the defendant reasonably believed publication was in the public interest. The court found the articles contained both statements of fact and opinion, and that the claimants had not established malice sufficient to defeat privilege. The court determined the natural and ordinary meanings of the articles and whether they were defamatory, but did not adjudicate on the underlying scientific truth of the statin debate.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; certain parts of the articles held privileged; public interest defence available; issues of truth, honest opinion, serious harm, and remedies stayed for further trial.

Orders

  • Parts of the articles reporting government and peer-reviewed scientific statements are protected by statutory qualified privilege unless malice is proven.
  • The public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013 is available to the defendants, subject to further determination of reasonableness and belief.