Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 320 (QB) (28 February 2006)

Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 320 (QB) (28 February 2006)

The defence of fair comment is not limited to facts stated or indicated in the words complained of; a defendant may plead extrinsic facts in support of fair comment provided the subject-matter is plainly stated and is a matter of public interest. The 'single meaning' rule does not apply to fair comment. The claimant's application to strike out the particulars on the basis that they are not found in the article is rejected.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 320
Parties
Claimant: Rupert Lowe; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Pleadings and Scope of Fair Comment Defence
Outcome
Claimant's application to strike out particulars of fair comment and justification dismissed.
Legal Topics
Fair Comment Defence, Justification Defence, Pleading Standards, Freedom of Expression, Article 10 ECHR
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Fair Comment Defence Justification Defence Pleading Standards Freedom of Expression Article 10 ECHR

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 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rupert Lowe

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Pleadings and Scope of Fair Comment Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of fair comment requires all supporting facts to be stated or indicated in the words complained of
  2. 2 Whether extrinsic facts not stated in the article can be pleaded in support of fair comment
  3. 3 Whether the 'single meaning' rule applies to fair comment

Ratio Decidendi

The defence of fair comment is not limited to facts stated or indicated in the words complained of; a defendant may plead extrinsic facts in support of fair comment provided the subject-matter is plainly stated and is a matter of public interest. The 'single meaning' rule does not apply to fair comment. The claimant's application to strike out the particulars on the basis that they are not found in the article is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application to strike out particulars of fair comment and justification dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant permitted to plead extrinsic facts in support of fair comment, subject to relevance and proportionality.
  • Particulars not struck out solely for not being stated in the article.