Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd

The pleaded meanings of corruption and conscious incompetence are outside the permissible range and are struck out, but the article is capable of reflecting adversely on the Claimant’s character or integrity and the action should not be struck out as a whole.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew James Miller; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Libel / Application for Ruling on Meaning Under CPR 53 PD 4.1
Outcome
First and second pleaded meanings struck out; action not struck out as a whole.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Strike Out Application
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Defamatory Statements Strike Out Application

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

Parties

Andrew James Miller

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Application for Ruling on Meaning Under CPR 53 PD 4.1

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article is capable of bearing defamatory meanings pleaded by the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out as incapable of reflecting adversely on the Claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded meanings of corruption and conscious incompetence are outside the permissible range and are struck out, but the article is capable of reflecting adversely on the Claimant’s character or integrity and the action should not be struck out as a whole.

Court Disposition

First and second pleaded meanings struck out; action not struck out as a whole.

Orders

  • First pleaded meaning struck out.
  • Second pleaded meaning struck out.